<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_24_1227201</id>
	<title>Sergey Brin On Google and China</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269437760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:yuhongbao\_386NO@SPAMhotmail.com" rel="nofollow">yuhong</a> writes <i>"The NY Times has an <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/interview-sergey-brin-on-googles-china-gambit/">interview with Sergey Brin on Google and China</a>. A few quotes from it: 'Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking &mdash; and Google's policy. "It has definitely shaped my views, and some of my company's views," he said.' Yes, business is personal, especially these days."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>yuhong writes " The NY Times has an interview with Sergey Brin on Google and China .
A few quotes from it : 'Mr .
Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old , and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking    and Google 's policy .
" It has definitely shaped my views , and some of my company 's views , " he said .
' Yes , business is personal , especially these days .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yuhong writes "The NY Times has an interview with Sergey Brin on Google and China.
A few quotes from it: 'Mr.
Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking — and Google's policy.
"It has definitely shaped my views, and some of my company's views," he said.
' Yes, business is personal, especially these days.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</id>
	<title>Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here.  They clearly are great at enticing (forcing?) a sense of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8584985.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">nationalism and pride</a> [bbc.co.uk] in their people.  Amazing how quickly some are turning on Google as if this is entirely their own fault and doing.  Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here .
They clearly are great at enticing ( forcing ?
) a sense of nationalism and pride [ bbc.co.uk ] in their people .
Amazing how quickly some are turning on Google as if this is entirely their own fault and doing .
Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here.
They clearly are great at enticing (forcing?
) a sense of nationalism and pride [bbc.co.uk] in their people.
Amazing how quickly some are turning on Google as if this is entirely their own fault and doing.
Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269444540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares. Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.</i></p><p>Bullshit.  Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization.  Many of those charters include a "public good" clause, which is why corporations are often large charity contributors (other than the obvious tax benefits).</p><p>There is absolutely *nothing* about the "corporation" structure that disallows moral behaviour, and there are many organizations out there that try to be good corporate citizens.  Are those organizations in the minority?  Maybe, I don't know.  But your fundamental supposition that "A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market share" and that "Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing" is complete crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares .
Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing , and at worst utter hypocrisy.Bullshit .
Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization .
Many of those charters include a " public good " clause , which is why corporations are often large charity contributors ( other than the obvious tax benefits ) .There is absolutely * nothing * about the " corporation " structure that disallows moral behaviour , and there are many organizations out there that try to be good corporate citizens .
Are those organizations in the minority ?
Maybe , I do n't know .
But your fundamental supposition that " A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market share " and that " Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing " is complete crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.
Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.Bullshit.
Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization.
Many of those charters include a "public good" clause, which is why corporations are often large charity contributors (other than the obvious tax benefits).There is absolutely *nothing* about the "corporation" structure that disallows moral behaviour, and there are many organizations out there that try to be good corporate citizens.
Are those organizations in the minority?
Maybe, I don't know.
But your fundamental supposition that "A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market share" and that "Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing" is complete crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597376</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents.</i></p> </div><p>[[citation needed]]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents .
[ [ citation needed ] ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents.
[[citation needed]]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598730</id>
	<title>not good for business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269449700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The power of self-righteous geeks should be limited to commenting on slashdot only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The power of self-righteous geeks should be limited to commenting on slashdot only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The power of self-righteous geeks should be limited to commenting on slashdot only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600026</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269454440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization.</p></div></blockquote><p>Every major corporation also has a PR department. Guess who writes the charter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization.Every major corporation also has a PR department .
Guess who writes the charter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every corporation has a charter which outlines the goals of the organization.Every major corporation also has a PR department.
Guess who writes the charter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597886</id>
	<title>Re:Totalitarianism is not always bad</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1269446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately for Google, totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances. For example, totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions. Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.</p><p>Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it <i>always</i> was totalitarian. Like it or not, it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet. So, under the circumstances, it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future, not vice-versa.</p></div><p>effective != good</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for Google , totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances .
For example , totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions .
Today 's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.Do n't forget , during the last twenty centuries , China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries , and it always was totalitarian .
Like it or not , it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet .
So , under the circumstances , it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future , not vice-versa.effective ! = good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for Google, totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances.
For example, totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions.
Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it always was totalitarian.
Like it or not, it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet.
So, under the circumstances, it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future, not vice-versa.effective != good
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599448</id>
	<title>When is slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269452340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... going to pull out of China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... going to pull out of China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... going to pull out of China?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612992</id>
	<title>Re:Not impressed.</title>
	<author>Daniel Phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1269539520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>their map services, music portal and <b>Gmail servers</b> all remain in China</p></div><p>Utter nonsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their map services , music portal and Gmail servers all remain in ChinaUtter nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their map services, music portal and Gmail servers all remain in ChinaUtter nonsense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602694</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1269421380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you think the Chinese who want to support a local company had that opinion forced on them? Do you feel the same about American's who look for "Made in the USA"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think the Chinese who want to support a local company had that opinion forced on them ?
Do you feel the same about American 's who look for " Made in the USA " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think the Chinese who want to support a local company had that opinion forced on them?
Do you feel the same about American's who look for "Made in the USA"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597188</id>
	<title>Yummy commie pablum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see we still have a few slashdotters who haven't yet tired of the yummy commie pablum they grew up eating.  Still longing for the good old days when they were the property of the state.</p><p>Mods read the whole thread carefully before you have a kneejerk reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see we still have a few slashdotters who have n't yet tired of the yummy commie pablum they grew up eating .
Still longing for the good old days when they were the property of the state.Mods read the whole thread carefully before you have a kneejerk reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see we still have a few slashdotters who haven't yet tired of the yummy commie pablum they grew up eating.
Still longing for the good old days when they were the property of the state.Mods read the whole thread carefully before you have a kneejerk reaction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598202</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this:</p><p>1) Go to China with good intentions<br>2) Realise said good intentions aren't practical, so go to 'plan b' and compromise<br>3) Raise brand awareness by demonstrating that you're good at finding stuff people actually want<br>4) Leave<br>5) Run same services from outside the country and wait for the onslaught of users who now want what they could have had, and won't quietly accept the Great Firewall of China blocking them.</p><p>I'm sure there's a "???" and "profit!" points, which I'm absolutely certain are there somewhere in the Google scheme of things ("don't be evil" - my ass).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : 1 ) Go to China with good intentions2 ) Realise said good intentions are n't practical , so go to 'plan b ' and compromise3 ) Raise brand awareness by demonstrating that you 're good at finding stuff people actually want4 ) Leave5 ) Run same services from outside the country and wait for the onslaught of users who now want what they could have had , and wo n't quietly accept the Great Firewall of China blocking them.I 'm sure there 's a " ? ? ?
" and " profit !
" points , which I 'm absolutely certain are there somewhere in the Google scheme of things ( " do n't be evil " - my ass ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this:1) Go to China with good intentions2) Realise said good intentions aren't practical, so go to 'plan b' and compromise3) Raise brand awareness by demonstrating that you're good at finding stuff people actually want4) Leave5) Run same services from outside the country and wait for the onslaught of users who now want what they could have had, and won't quietly accept the Great Firewall of China blocking them.I'm sure there's a "???
" and "profit!
" points, which I'm absolutely certain are there somewhere in the Google scheme of things ("don't be evil" - my ass).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597870</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1269446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am really curious how the Chinese people are reacting to this, but that BBC article doesn't do it for me.  It just says some side with google, some against, but how could it be otherwise?  Those who side with the government, I wonder why?  Is it that they feel the blocked content is harmful and therefore should be blocked?  Is it that they see google as an outsider which is out of place trying to change their government?  Are they suspicious the whole thing is just a publicity stunt by google?  Do they simply not know or care because most aren't on the Internet anyways and those who are mostly use baidu?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am really curious how the Chinese people are reacting to this , but that BBC article does n't do it for me .
It just says some side with google , some against , but how could it be otherwise ?
Those who side with the government , I wonder why ?
Is it that they feel the blocked content is harmful and therefore should be blocked ?
Is it that they see google as an outsider which is out of place trying to change their government ?
Are they suspicious the whole thing is just a publicity stunt by google ?
Do they simply not know or care because most are n't on the Internet anyways and those who are mostly use baidu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am really curious how the Chinese people are reacting to this, but that BBC article doesn't do it for me.
It just says some side with google, some against, but how could it be otherwise?
Those who side with the government, I wonder why?
Is it that they feel the blocked content is harmful and therefore should be blocked?
Is it that they see google as an outsider which is out of place trying to change their government?
Are they suspicious the whole thing is just a publicity stunt by google?
Do they simply not know or care because most aren't on the Internet anyways and those who are mostly use baidu?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598216</id>
	<title>Battle of two Big Brothers</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1269447960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big Google versus Big China.  Both have totalitarian control over domains.  Both claim to be "benevolent" and deny the other's claim. I wonder if Orwell could ever foresee this. There have been scifi novels/movies about EITHER corporate totalitarianism or government totalitarianism but not BOTH together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Google versus Big China .
Both have totalitarian control over domains .
Both claim to be " benevolent " and deny the other 's claim .
I wonder if Orwell could ever foresee this .
There have been scifi novels/movies about EITHER corporate totalitarianism or government totalitarianism but not BOTH together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Google versus Big China.
Both have totalitarian control over domains.
Both claim to be "benevolent" and deny the other's claim.
I wonder if Orwell could ever foresee this.
There have been scifi novels/movies about EITHER corporate totalitarianism or government totalitarianism but not BOTH together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600898</id>
	<title>Not only that...</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1269457800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but on a purely business level, I had heard (this morning, actually) on one of the cable news channels that China only represented just over 1 percent of Google's business.
<p>
I wonder how much they were spending on infrastructure within China, and if it actually hurt, rather than helped, their bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but on a purely business level , I had heard ( this morning , actually ) on one of the cable news channels that China only represented just over 1 percent of Google 's business .
I wonder how much they were spending on infrastructure within China , and if it actually hurt , rather than helped , their bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but on a purely business level, I had heard (this morning, actually) on one of the cable news channels that China only represented just over 1 percent of Google's business.
I wonder how much they were spending on infrastructure within China, and if it actually hurt, rather than helped, their bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598682</id>
	<title>Not to say that there wasn't antisemitism in the U</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1269449580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to say that there wasn't antisemitism in the USSR, but if you look at the Russian scientific elite, a significant fraction of them (if not the majority) are Jewish. In Russia (and the USSR before it), getting a doctoral degree is a HUGE deal. What they call PhD here is merely a "candidate" degree over there. As a matter of fact you are \_NOT GUARANTEED\_ to ever become a doctor, whether you're Jewish, Russian or any other nationality. It requires a decade of work (oftentimes more) and significant scientific achievement.</p><p>So it could be that his father just didn't have what it took to become a doctor, and blamed it on antisemitism. If I were to guess, I'd give that course of events a 90\% probability. I also find it funny that Sergey's world view could be severely affected by something like that. Life wasn't bad in the USSR, particularly in 79. Worse in some ways than it is in Russia right now, but far from bad in absolute terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to say that there was n't antisemitism in the USSR , but if you look at the Russian scientific elite , a significant fraction of them ( if not the majority ) are Jewish .
In Russia ( and the USSR before it ) , getting a doctoral degree is a HUGE deal .
What they call PhD here is merely a " candidate " degree over there .
As a matter of fact you are \ _NOT GUARANTEED \ _ to ever become a doctor , whether you 're Jewish , Russian or any other nationality .
It requires a decade of work ( oftentimes more ) and significant scientific achievement.So it could be that his father just did n't have what it took to become a doctor , and blamed it on antisemitism .
If I were to guess , I 'd give that course of events a 90 \ % probability .
I also find it funny that Sergey 's world view could be severely affected by something like that .
Life was n't bad in the USSR , particularly in 79 .
Worse in some ways than it is in Russia right now , but far from bad in absolute terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to say that there wasn't antisemitism in the USSR, but if you look at the Russian scientific elite, a significant fraction of them (if not the majority) are Jewish.
In Russia (and the USSR before it), getting a doctoral degree is a HUGE deal.
What they call PhD here is merely a "candidate" degree over there.
As a matter of fact you are \_NOT GUARANTEED\_ to ever become a doctor, whether you're Jewish, Russian or any other nationality.
It requires a decade of work (oftentimes more) and significant scientific achievement.So it could be that his father just didn't have what it took to become a doctor, and blamed it on antisemitism.
If I were to guess, I'd give that course of events a 90\% probability.
I also find it funny that Sergey's world view could be severely affected by something like that.
Life wasn't bad in the USSR, particularly in 79.
Worse in some ways than it is in Russia right now, but far from bad in absolute terms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597700</id>
	<title>Slashdot moderation is outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.</p></div><p>Is the song stuck in your head or what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.Is the song stuck in your head or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.Is the song stuck in your head or what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600996</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>sycorob</author>
	<datestamp>1269458160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been thinking this for awhile. I'm sure executives at Google didn't love having to do censorship in China (it's gotta create a bunch of busywork for the developers, if nothing else), but they went along with it for awhile. However, if I was running a company in China, and it became painfully obvious that the government was trying to hack my systems to get the identities of protesters and try to steal my IP, and at the same time blatantly helping out my local competition<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that sounds like a loosing game.</p><p>I'm guessing that somebody originally didn't want to go in to China, and only after the attacks could he get enough support to get others to agree to pull out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking this for awhile .
I 'm sure executives at Google did n't love having to do censorship in China ( it 's got ta create a bunch of busywork for the developers , if nothing else ) , but they went along with it for awhile .
However , if I was running a company in China , and it became painfully obvious that the government was trying to hack my systems to get the identities of protesters and try to steal my IP , and at the same time blatantly helping out my local competition ... that sounds like a loosing game.I 'm guessing that somebody originally did n't want to go in to China , and only after the attacks could he get enough support to get others to agree to pull out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking this for awhile.
I'm sure executives at Google didn't love having to do censorship in China (it's gotta create a bunch of busywork for the developers, if nothing else), but they went along with it for awhile.
However, if I was running a company in China, and it became painfully obvious that the government was trying to hack my systems to get the identities of protesters and try to steal my IP, and at the same time blatantly helping out my local competition ... that sounds like a loosing game.I'm guessing that somebody originally didn't want to go in to China, and only after the attacks could he get enough support to get others to agree to pull out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597246</id>
	<title>Re:A five year old.</title>
	<author>cjcela</author>
	<datestamp>1269444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
For a children it is about living in fear, not about politics. You do not understand this because you have always lived in a protected society, and your parents were never in fear for their lives, so they raised you accordingly. It is hard to relate unless you have lived through something similar.
</p><p>
I grew up under a military dictatorship when a kid, and I still remember my parents explaining what a curfew was to me when I was 3 or 4 years old, and me not been able to sleep at night because hearing shooting, bombs going out, and people yelling on the street. To this day, I am afraid of the police and to publicly express my political opinions. I even though 10 times before posting this under my name and not as AC.
</p><p>
Sergei's experience may not have been as bad, but a 5 year old understands fear and censorship, and believe me, once you've been there, you deal with it all your life. Good for him for standing up.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a children it is about living in fear , not about politics .
You do not understand this because you have always lived in a protected society , and your parents were never in fear for their lives , so they raised you accordingly .
It is hard to relate unless you have lived through something similar .
I grew up under a military dictatorship when a kid , and I still remember my parents explaining what a curfew was to me when I was 3 or 4 years old , and me not been able to sleep at night because hearing shooting , bombs going out , and people yelling on the street .
To this day , I am afraid of the police and to publicly express my political opinions .
I even though 10 times before posting this under my name and not as AC .
Sergei 's experience may not have been as bad , but a 5 year old understands fear and censorship , and believe me , once you 've been there , you deal with it all your life .
Good for him for standing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For a children it is about living in fear, not about politics.
You do not understand this because you have always lived in a protected society, and your parents were never in fear for their lives, so they raised you accordingly.
It is hard to relate unless you have lived through something similar.
I grew up under a military dictatorship when a kid, and I still remember my parents explaining what a curfew was to me when I was 3 or 4 years old, and me not been able to sleep at night because hearing shooting, bombs going out, and people yelling on the street.
To this day, I am afraid of the police and to publicly express my political opinions.
I even though 10 times before posting this under my name and not as AC.
Sergei's experience may not have been as bad, but a 5 year old understands fear and censorship, and believe me, once you've been there, you deal with it all your life.
Good for him for standing up.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154</id>
	<title>6 years old</title>
	<author>raind</author>
	<datestamp>1269443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was he at 6 years even know where or what the politics of the country was? If so wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was he at 6 years even know where or what the politics of the country was ?
If so wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was he at 6 years even know where or what the politics of the country was?
If so wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605832</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269437400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Meh, China might have a population of 1 billion people.  That's only 20\% of the global market share and out of that market share I bet most Chinese citizens who do not live in the major cities do not have Internet access.
</p><p>
I believe Google did the math and the business case on doing business in an ethical manner won over the business case of having a Chinese presence.
</p><p>
China is just the latest buzzword; unfortunately for Americans the Chinese own most of their debt.  That's a big stick to wield!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , China might have a population of 1 billion people .
That 's only 20 \ % of the global market share and out of that market share I bet most Chinese citizens who do not live in the major cities do not have Internet access .
I believe Google did the math and the business case on doing business in an ethical manner won over the business case of having a Chinese presence .
China is just the latest buzzword ; unfortunately for Americans the Chinese own most of their debt .
That 's a big stick to wield !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Meh, China might have a population of 1 billion people.
That's only 20\% of the global market share and out of that market share I bet most Chinese citizens who do not live in the major cities do not have Internet access.
I believe Google did the math and the business case on doing business in an ethical manner won over the business case of having a Chinese presence.
China is just the latest buzzword; unfortunately for Americans the Chinese own most of their debt.
That's a big stick to wield!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597042</id>
	<title>Nice and fresh.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1269443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its nice and very refreshing to see that a company can take responsibility and not just hide behind the money. Right now we are building a society where nobody is to blame for anything and everybody hides behind "business reasons" as if that was an excuse for making decisions against good faith.</p><p>I applaud Google and i really hope this will rub off against other companies. Its time we pull our global economy out of the gutter and start acting like grown up people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its nice and very refreshing to see that a company can take responsibility and not just hide behind the money .
Right now we are building a society where nobody is to blame for anything and everybody hides behind " business reasons " as if that was an excuse for making decisions against good faith.I applaud Google and i really hope this will rub off against other companies .
Its time we pull our global economy out of the gutter and start acting like grown up people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its nice and very refreshing to see that a company can take responsibility and not just hide behind the money.
Right now we are building a society where nobody is to blame for anything and everybody hides behind "business reasons" as if that was an excuse for making decisions against good faith.I applaud Google and i really hope this will rub off against other companies.
Its time we pull our global economy out of the gutter and start acting like grown up people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598022</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>flyingsquid</author>
	<datestamp>1269447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>they'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just can't seem to stay out of other people's business.</i>
We already give China shit over their human rights abuses, so many people already think we're butting into other people's business. Taking a stance on Google (freedom of information and dissent arguably being a human right) is more of the same. But in the past, the U.S. has been an important force in pushing human rights. The War on Terror has cost us the moral high ground in the international community, but it's something we should try to reclaim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just ca n't seem to stay out of other people 's business .
We already give China shit over their human rights abuses , so many people already think we 're butting into other people 's business .
Taking a stance on Google ( freedom of information and dissent arguably being a human right ) is more of the same .
But in the past , the U.S. has been an important force in pushing human rights .
The War on Terror has cost us the moral high ground in the international community , but it 's something we should try to reclaim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just can't seem to stay out of other people's business.
We already give China shit over their human rights abuses, so many people already think we're butting into other people's business.
Taking a stance on Google (freedom of information and dissent arguably being a human right) is more of the same.
But in the past, the U.S. has been an important force in pushing human rights.
The War on Terror has cost us the moral high ground in the international community, but it's something we should try to reclaim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598268</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>KingJoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1269448140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many here would think anyone that supported the Chinese government's positions are brainwashed, yet they can't conceive of themselves being heavily biased or maybe they don't have the intellectual ability to see from other perspectives. My post is not flamebait. What it is, is a view contrary to your own from someone who has different experiences and different values. Maybe your biases have shaped you so much that you can't see the world in all its many forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many here would think anyone that supported the Chinese government 's positions are brainwashed , yet they ca n't conceive of themselves being heavily biased or maybe they do n't have the intellectual ability to see from other perspectives .
My post is not flamebait .
What it is , is a view contrary to your own from someone who has different experiences and different values .
Maybe your biases have shaped you so much that you ca n't see the world in all its many forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many here would think anyone that supported the Chinese government's positions are brainwashed, yet they can't conceive of themselves being heavily biased or maybe they don't have the intellectual ability to see from other perspectives.
My post is not flamebait.
What it is, is a view contrary to your own from someone who has different experiences and different values.
Maybe your biases have shaped you so much that you can't see the world in all its many forms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326</id>
	<title>Google = United States</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To China, Google might as well be an arm of the federal government.  When Google does something, it's not one private company that did it, but all of America that did it.  It's actually a quite frightening 19th century attitude.  Mark my words, China will be the Germany of the 21st century.  Recently unified, recently economically powerful, a deep sense of historical humiliation (the Opium Wars and the Eight Nations might just as well have existed yesterday and <b>yes people really feel this way</b>), and a government that views building the military as a method of gaining prestige in the world.  HMS Dreadnought came about because of a Germany-inspired arms race at sea.  China, very very much wants to humiliate America and have the world bow Obama-style and call China "teacher".  You know how open source zealots seize every opportunity to trash corporations?  Even the flimsiest excuse will do, and if they don't have an excuse they'll just make one up.  This is what China is doing with Google.  The story is that American companies are trying to pollute Chinese society with pornography and separatism, and they feel themselves above Chinese law.  Of course, we just see a CEO grandstanding so he can feel good about himself and appear at awards dinners to accept "ethics" trophies.  The real casualties in this mess are the other Americans who have to deal with the fallout.  But screw them, eh, Sergey?</htmltext>
<tokenext>To China , Google might as well be an arm of the federal government .
When Google does something , it 's not one private company that did it , but all of America that did it .
It 's actually a quite frightening 19th century attitude .
Mark my words , China will be the Germany of the 21st century .
Recently unified , recently economically powerful , a deep sense of historical humiliation ( the Opium Wars and the Eight Nations might just as well have existed yesterday and yes people really feel this way ) , and a government that views building the military as a method of gaining prestige in the world .
HMS Dreadnought came about because of a Germany-inspired arms race at sea .
China , very very much wants to humiliate America and have the world bow Obama-style and call China " teacher " .
You know how open source zealots seize every opportunity to trash corporations ?
Even the flimsiest excuse will do , and if they do n't have an excuse they 'll just make one up .
This is what China is doing with Google .
The story is that American companies are trying to pollute Chinese society with pornography and separatism , and they feel themselves above Chinese law .
Of course , we just see a CEO grandstanding so he can feel good about himself and appear at awards dinners to accept " ethics " trophies .
The real casualties in this mess are the other Americans who have to deal with the fallout .
But screw them , eh , Sergey ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To China, Google might as well be an arm of the federal government.
When Google does something, it's not one private company that did it, but all of America that did it.
It's actually a quite frightening 19th century attitude.
Mark my words, China will be the Germany of the 21st century.
Recently unified, recently economically powerful, a deep sense of historical humiliation (the Opium Wars and the Eight Nations might just as well have existed yesterday and yes people really feel this way), and a government that views building the military as a method of gaining prestige in the world.
HMS Dreadnought came about because of a Germany-inspired arms race at sea.
China, very very much wants to humiliate America and have the world bow Obama-style and call China "teacher".
You know how open source zealots seize every opportunity to trash corporations?
Even the flimsiest excuse will do, and if they don't have an excuse they'll just make one up.
This is what China is doing with Google.
The story is that American companies are trying to pollute Chinese society with pornography and separatism, and they feel themselves above Chinese law.
Of course, we just see a CEO grandstanding so he can feel good about himself and appear at awards dinners to accept "ethics" trophies.
The real casualties in this mess are the other Americans who have to deal with the fallout.
But screw them, eh, Sergey?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597262</id>
	<title>Flavors of oligarchy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing. And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well. They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers).</p> </div><p>A bunch of corporate weasels teaming up with a clique of totalitarian oligarchs to make money, sounds like a marriage made in heaven. Every time one of these obscenely rich Americans gets an attack of idealism and starts talking about freedom, liberty and his love of democracy It makes me laugh. The US is no more of a democracy than China, it's a plutocracy ruled by a clique of wealthy oligarchs and corrupt politicians just like China is. The only difference is the mechanisms of control and the fact that the US maintains a veneer of democracy for the sake of tradition. FWIIW the same applies to most of Europe as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing .
And that Eric Schmidt is against it , and probably the rest of the board is as well .
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible , even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price ( again : see John Chambers ) .
A bunch of corporate weasels teaming up with a clique of totalitarian oligarchs to make money , sounds like a marriage made in heaven .
Every time one of these obscenely rich Americans gets an attack of idealism and starts talking about freedom , liberty and his love of democracy It makes me laugh .
The US is no more of a democracy than China , it 's a plutocracy ruled by a clique of wealthy oligarchs and corrupt politicians just like China is .
The only difference is the mechanisms of control and the fact that the US maintains a veneer of democracy for the sake of tradition .
FWIIW the same applies to most of Europe as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing.
And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well.
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers).
A bunch of corporate weasels teaming up with a clique of totalitarian oligarchs to make money, sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Every time one of these obscenely rich Americans gets an attack of idealism and starts talking about freedom, liberty and his love of democracy It makes me laugh.
The US is no more of a democracy than China, it's a plutocracy ruled by a clique of wealthy oligarchs and corrupt politicians just like China is.
The only difference is the mechanisms of control and the fact that the US maintains a veneer of democracy for the sake of tradition.
FWIIW the same applies to most of Europe as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597616</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the feeling that your feelings have no influence on reality, and that your opinions are likely shaped in an atmosphere where you have no fucking idea what's actually going on and you just wanted an excuse for a generic unrelated anti-corporate rant to get modded up in the Slashdot echo chamber.</p><p>I bet I am more right than you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling that your feelings have no influence on reality , and that your opinions are likely shaped in an atmosphere where you have no fucking idea what 's actually going on and you just wanted an excuse for a generic unrelated anti-corporate rant to get modded up in the Slashdot echo chamber.I bet I am more right than you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling that your feelings have no influence on reality, and that your opinions are likely shaped in an atmosphere where you have no fucking idea what's actually going on and you just wanted an excuse for a generic unrelated anti-corporate rant to get modded up in the Slashdot echo chamber.I bet I am more right than you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597316</id>
	<title>Re:A five year old.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269444360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Martin Luther King's assassination, although granted I as *only* seven.  I was walking down the street with my mom, and I read a hand lettered sign tacked to a telephone pole calling for revenge against white people.   My mom explained that when something bad happens, somebody is bound to get mad and make things worse for everyone.</p><p>It made a big impression on me, and I certainly recalled that moment three decades later when I turned on my radio on the morning of September 11, 2001.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Martin Luther King 's assassination , although granted I as * only * seven .
I was walking down the street with my mom , and I read a hand lettered sign tacked to a telephone pole calling for revenge against white people .
My mom explained that when something bad happens , somebody is bound to get mad and make things worse for everyone.It made a big impression on me , and I certainly recalled that moment three decades later when I turned on my radio on the morning of September 11 , 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Martin Luther King's assassination, although granted I as *only* seven.
I was walking down the street with my mom, and I read a hand lettered sign tacked to a telephone pole calling for revenge against white people.
My mom explained that when something bad happens, somebody is bound to get mad and make things worse for everyone.It made a big impression on me, and I certainly recalled that moment three decades later when I turned on my radio on the morning of September 11, 2001.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596762</id>
	<title>Politial speech influenced 6 yrs old chid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597584</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1269445440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stereotypes. I was nearly shot at Southern Washington D.C., while being there as a tourist. But nothing even remotely like this happened to me in Russia.</p><p>Does it mean that the USA is a bad dangerous place? Of course, not. It is a great interesting country.</p><p>If you happened to find yourself in a bad condition while in Russia does not mean that all people there live in a bad condition.</p><p>There are people who live well and happily in Russia and there are people who find themselves on the street begging in the USA. And vice-versa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stereotypes .
I was nearly shot at Southern Washington D.C. , while being there as a tourist .
But nothing even remotely like this happened to me in Russia.Does it mean that the USA is a bad dangerous place ?
Of course , not .
It is a great interesting country.If you happened to find yourself in a bad condition while in Russia does not mean that all people there live in a bad condition.There are people who live well and happily in Russia and there are people who find themselves on the street begging in the USA .
And vice-versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stereotypes.
I was nearly shot at Southern Washington D.C., while being there as a tourist.
But nothing even remotely like this happened to me in Russia.Does it mean that the USA is a bad dangerous place?
Of course, not.
It is a great interesting country.If you happened to find yourself in a bad condition while in Russia does not mean that all people there live in a bad condition.There are people who live well and happily in Russia and there are people who find themselves on the street begging in the USA.
And vice-versa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597218</id>
	<title>end of gun boat diplomacy?</title>
	<author>nerdyalien</author>
	<datestamp>1269444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all started in a naive internet security incident (Gmail accounts getting hacked) and now it has gone to the extent of "free internet", "free speech". I don't see much connection between them.</p><p>In anyway, when British opium business was banned by then Chinese emperor, opium lords lobbied in British parliament to send the gun boats and take back the market. That's how HK became a British colony. Now that was 18th century!</p><p>Even though Hillary Clinton called for a probe on cyber attacks, so far US government didn't take any serious action to forcefully defend the search market in China for Google (or any other tech company) like British government did in opium war. I don't know Obama will take up this issue as Health Care is settling now.</p><p>But what I am wondering is... has the gun-boat diplomacy finally reached its end of road ?? With this Google vs. China incident, it seems like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all started in a naive internet security incident ( Gmail accounts getting hacked ) and now it has gone to the extent of " free internet " , " free speech " .
I do n't see much connection between them.In anyway , when British opium business was banned by then Chinese emperor , opium lords lobbied in British parliament to send the gun boats and take back the market .
That 's how HK became a British colony .
Now that was 18th century ! Even though Hillary Clinton called for a probe on cyber attacks , so far US government did n't take any serious action to forcefully defend the search market in China for Google ( or any other tech company ) like British government did in opium war .
I do n't know Obama will take up this issue as Health Care is settling now.But what I am wondering is... has the gun-boat diplomacy finally reached its end of road ? ?
With this Google vs. China incident , it seems like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all started in a naive internet security incident (Gmail accounts getting hacked) and now it has gone to the extent of "free internet", "free speech".
I don't see much connection between them.In anyway, when British opium business was banned by then Chinese emperor, opium lords lobbied in British parliament to send the gun boats and take back the market.
That's how HK became a British colony.
Now that was 18th century!Even though Hillary Clinton called for a probe on cyber attacks, so far US government didn't take any serious action to forcefully defend the search market in China for Google (or any other tech company) like British government did in opium war.
I don't know Obama will take up this issue as Health Care is settling now.But what I am wondering is... has the gun-boat diplomacy finally reached its end of road ??
With this Google vs. China incident, it seems like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31615824</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269548520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google finds YOU!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google finds YOU ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google finds YOU!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598100</id>
	<title>Re:Totalitarianism is not always bad</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1269447540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU."</p><p>No, it proves no such thing. All the Chinese GDP growth proves is that artificial manipulation of exchange rates by the Chinese government are more effective than the West's current plan of pushing and protecting free-trade even in the face of such manipulation. China's growth depends almost entirely on the West, and if Chinese goods become more expensive because the West finally gets tired of China's refusal to stop manipulating their currency so drastically then it's growth will plummet whether it's totalitarian, authoritarian, a democracy or whatever. Now, you could argue that that manipulation is part of their authoritarianist attitude, which is true, but it still doesn't ignore the fact that Western democracies could crush it by adding tariffs on imports in China to correct China's currency manipulation anyway. As a counter-example to yours, look at the USSR, it was totalitarian yet it fell into absolute ruins because Russia did not have access to the Western markets that China enjoys right now. It's also worth noting that the US' economy is still 3.5x as large as China's and the EU's is 4.5x as large as Chinas, so even if China can keep up current rates they have a hell of a long way to go. That's not to say they wont become a more important world player politically than they historically have been however of course, they almost certainly will.</p><p>"Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it always was totalitarian."</p><p>For at least a few of the last 20 centuries it appeared to be authoritarian rather than totalitarian. Despite all that, I'd be intrigued to see how it managed to be the largest economy over 18 of the last 20 centuries in the face of some pretty large empires and the loss of large amounts of territory during some periods so I'd be greatful if you've got some sources you can point me to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today 's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU .
" No , it proves no such thing .
All the Chinese GDP growth proves is that artificial manipulation of exchange rates by the Chinese government are more effective than the West 's current plan of pushing and protecting free-trade even in the face of such manipulation .
China 's growth depends almost entirely on the West , and if Chinese goods become more expensive because the West finally gets tired of China 's refusal to stop manipulating their currency so drastically then it 's growth will plummet whether it 's totalitarian , authoritarian , a democracy or whatever .
Now , you could argue that that manipulation is part of their authoritarianist attitude , which is true , but it still does n't ignore the fact that Western democracies could crush it by adding tariffs on imports in China to correct China 's currency manipulation anyway .
As a counter-example to yours , look at the USSR , it was totalitarian yet it fell into absolute ruins because Russia did not have access to the Western markets that China enjoys right now .
It 's also worth noting that the US ' economy is still 3.5x as large as China 's and the EU 's is 4.5x as large as Chinas , so even if China can keep up current rates they have a hell of a long way to go .
That 's not to say they wont become a more important world player politically than they historically have been however of course , they almost certainly will .
" Do n't forget , during the last twenty centuries , China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries , and it always was totalitarian .
" For at least a few of the last 20 centuries it appeared to be authoritarian rather than totalitarian .
Despite all that , I 'd be intrigued to see how it managed to be the largest economy over 18 of the last 20 centuries in the face of some pretty large empires and the loss of large amounts of territory during some periods so I 'd be greatful if you 've got some sources you can point me to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.
"No, it proves no such thing.
All the Chinese GDP growth proves is that artificial manipulation of exchange rates by the Chinese government are more effective than the West's current plan of pushing and protecting free-trade even in the face of such manipulation.
China's growth depends almost entirely on the West, and if Chinese goods become more expensive because the West finally gets tired of China's refusal to stop manipulating their currency so drastically then it's growth will plummet whether it's totalitarian, authoritarian, a democracy or whatever.
Now, you could argue that that manipulation is part of their authoritarianist attitude, which is true, but it still doesn't ignore the fact that Western democracies could crush it by adding tariffs on imports in China to correct China's currency manipulation anyway.
As a counter-example to yours, look at the USSR, it was totalitarian yet it fell into absolute ruins because Russia did not have access to the Western markets that China enjoys right now.
It's also worth noting that the US' economy is still 3.5x as large as China's and the EU's is 4.5x as large as Chinas, so even if China can keep up current rates they have a hell of a long way to go.
That's not to say they wont become a more important world player politically than they historically have been however of course, they almost certainly will.
"Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it always was totalitarian.
"For at least a few of the last 20 centuries it appeared to be authoritarian rather than totalitarian.
Despite all that, I'd be intrigued to see how it managed to be the largest economy over 18 of the last 20 centuries in the face of some pretty large empires and the loss of large amounts of territory during some periods so I'd be greatful if you've got some sources you can point me to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>&gt; Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.</i> </p><p>Granted Slashdot is tech oriented but you can't look at the Google episode in isolation and expect to understand the entirety of it.  Grievances with China have been building for a decade now.  Things changed drastically when the Chinese insulted Obama during his trip to Beijing last November and they followed it up by publicly embarrassing him when they sunk the Copenhagen accords a month later.  Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated.  The two countries may make token efforts to get along where they can but things have fundamentally changed and it has to do with much bigger economic issues than just Google.</p><p>Put the Google stuff (which first emerged shortly thereafter) in this context.  People can argue endlessly about whether Google is being hypocritical on flip-flopping on censorship.  It is besides the point.  The real issue here is corporate espionage, fair play in Chinese market, trade issues, etc.</p><p>The next big thing is due out on April 15th.  No, not your taexs.  The Treasury department is due to release its biannual report on cheating trade nations.  Even though China should have been on that list semi-permanently for a decade or more the US has always allowed them to slide.  The big question is whether they allow it again this time.  If China goes on the list it the first step to trade sanctions and possibly tariffs on Chinese goods.  If you read the new lately China is screaming bloody murder and throwing every smoke bomb in their arsenal out to the press.</p><p>So yeah, this show is becoming interesting but it going to be <i>much</i> bigger than Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming .
Granted Slashdot is tech oriented but you ca n't look at the Google episode in isolation and expect to understand the entirety of it .
Grievances with China have been building for a decade now .
Things changed drastically when the Chinese insulted Obama during his trip to Beijing last November and they followed it up by publicly embarrassing him when they sunk the Copenhagen accords a month later .
Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated .
The two countries may make token efforts to get along where they can but things have fundamentally changed and it has to do with much bigger economic issues than just Google.Put the Google stuff ( which first emerged shortly thereafter ) in this context .
People can argue endlessly about whether Google is being hypocritical on flip-flopping on censorship .
It is besides the point .
The real issue here is corporate espionage , fair play in Chinese market , trade issues , etc.The next big thing is due out on April 15th .
No , not your taexs .
The Treasury department is due to release its biannual report on cheating trade nations .
Even though China should have been on that list semi-permanently for a decade or more the US has always allowed them to slide .
The big question is whether they allow it again this time .
If China goes on the list it the first step to trade sanctions and possibly tariffs on Chinese goods .
If you read the new lately China is screaming bloody murder and throwing every smoke bomb in their arsenal out to the press.So yeah , this show is becoming interesting but it going to be much bigger than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> &gt; Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.
Granted Slashdot is tech oriented but you can't look at the Google episode in isolation and expect to understand the entirety of it.
Grievances with China have been building for a decade now.
Things changed drastically when the Chinese insulted Obama during his trip to Beijing last November and they followed it up by publicly embarrassing him when they sunk the Copenhagen accords a month later.
Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated.
The two countries may make token efforts to get along where they can but things have fundamentally changed and it has to do with much bigger economic issues than just Google.Put the Google stuff (which first emerged shortly thereafter) in this context.
People can argue endlessly about whether Google is being hypocritical on flip-flopping on censorship.
It is besides the point.
The real issue here is corporate espionage, fair play in Chinese market, trade issues, etc.The next big thing is due out on April 15th.
No, not your taexs.
The Treasury department is due to release its biannual report on cheating trade nations.
Even though China should have been on that list semi-permanently for a decade or more the US has always allowed them to slide.
The big question is whether they allow it again this time.
If China goes on the list it the first step to trade sanctions and possibly tariffs on Chinese goods.
If you read the new lately China is screaming bloody murder and throwing every smoke bomb in their arsenal out to the press.So yeah, this show is becoming interesting but it going to be much bigger than Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603784</id>
	<title>Re:Not to say that there wasn't antisemitism in th</title>
	<author>Teunis</author>
	<datestamp>1269425700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my grandfather's day, only a "Russian" could get a degree in Russia.   Not a Mennonite (which he was), nor a Jew nor any other group - just what they termed "Russians".   He was refused his degree because he was Mennonite.   Mind - his home town as well as all the other communities in the area were purged in the 1920s and we get stories like "Fiddler on the Roof" from that area.<br>fwiw: his hometown - all of it that I know of - ended up in Manitoba - because he hauled them out on ships.  (it's a complicated story.  There's a couple of books out about it).  If you want to know more, investigate into the Ukraine area and how Jews and Mennonites were treated, 1880s through 1900s as well as 1920s.<br>I don't know when they started allowing Jewish people degrees in the USSR, but I'm going to guess it was probably post-Stalin.<br>on the flip side, my grandfather was also very antisemitic.   My grandfather died long before I was born - and he tried to get his degree in the early 1900s, so this isn't modern information by any length.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my grandfather 's day , only a " Russian " could get a degree in Russia .
Not a Mennonite ( which he was ) , nor a Jew nor any other group - just what they termed " Russians " .
He was refused his degree because he was Mennonite .
Mind - his home town as well as all the other communities in the area were purged in the 1920s and we get stories like " Fiddler on the Roof " from that area.fwiw : his hometown - all of it that I know of - ended up in Manitoba - because he hauled them out on ships .
( it 's a complicated story .
There 's a couple of books out about it ) .
If you want to know more , investigate into the Ukraine area and how Jews and Mennonites were treated , 1880s through 1900s as well as 1920s.I do n't know when they started allowing Jewish people degrees in the USSR , but I 'm going to guess it was probably post-Stalin.on the flip side , my grandfather was also very antisemitic .
My grandfather died long before I was born - and he tried to get his degree in the early 1900s , so this is n't modern information by any length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my grandfather's day, only a "Russian" could get a degree in Russia.
Not a Mennonite (which he was), nor a Jew nor any other group - just what they termed "Russians".
He was refused his degree because he was Mennonite.
Mind - his home town as well as all the other communities in the area were purged in the 1920s and we get stories like "Fiddler on the Roof" from that area.fwiw: his hometown - all of it that I know of - ended up in Manitoba - because he hauled them out on ships.
(it's a complicated story.
There's a couple of books out about it).
If you want to know more, investigate into the Ukraine area and how Jews and Mennonites were treated, 1880s through 1900s as well as 1920s.I don't know when they started allowing Jewish people degrees in the USSR, but I'm going to guess it was probably post-Stalin.on the flip side, my grandfather was also very antisemitic.
My grandfather died long before I was born - and he tried to get his degree in the early 1900s, so this isn't modern information by any length.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597208</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They agreed to it because China is a huge and rapidly-growing market.  A hundred years from now it will be either the largest or second-largest in the world, depending on how things go in India.</p><p>Google is a company.  It exists to make profits.  Brin and others can babble about "Don't Be Evil" all they like -- Brin may even be a true believer in that -- but ultimately it comes down to whether it's worth it for Google, financially, to stay in mainland China.  Everything else is bullshit.  End of story.</p><p>The only difference between Google and other companies on this is the hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They agreed to it because China is a huge and rapidly-growing market .
A hundred years from now it will be either the largest or second-largest in the world , depending on how things go in India.Google is a company .
It exists to make profits .
Brin and others can babble about " Do n't Be Evil " all they like -- Brin may even be a true believer in that -- but ultimately it comes down to whether it 's worth it for Google , financially , to stay in mainland China .
Everything else is bullshit .
End of story.The only difference between Google and other companies on this is the hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They agreed to it because China is a huge and rapidly-growing market.
A hundred years from now it will be either the largest or second-largest in the world, depending on how things go in India.Google is a company.
It exists to make profits.
Brin and others can babble about "Don't Be Evil" all they like -- Brin may even be a true believer in that -- but ultimately it comes down to whether it's worth it for Google, financially, to stay in mainland China.
Everything else is bullshit.
End of story.The only difference between Google and other companies on this is the hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31616390</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics?</p><p>It makes a bigger impact going into China building a decent amount of market-share there, then making a fuss over leaving, rather than not going in at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics ? It makes a bigger impact going into China building a decent amount of market-share there , then making a fuss over leaving , rather than not going in at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics?It makes a bigger impact going into China building a decent amount of market-share there, then making a fuss over leaving, rather than not going in at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596942</id>
	<title>Did Brin remembered</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1269442620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he lived in Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old only after some guy from China cracked some Gmail accounts?<br>Chinese government surely was fine before that accident because Google censored results without thinking twice about it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he lived in Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old only after some guy from China cracked some Gmail accounts ? Chinese government surely was fine before that accident because Google censored results without thinking twice about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he lived in Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old only after some guy from China cracked some Gmail accounts?Chinese government surely was fine before that accident because Google censored results without thinking twice about it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31604058</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1269426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  Because Google isn't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified
  values? Instead, it's an organization of individuals</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Absolutely correct.
</p><blockquote><div><p>  I don't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil,
  heartless, money-grubbing mega-corporation that's willing to do anything for
  a buck, as so many around here seem to think.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yet that's the lowest common denominator, by your own admission above.
</p><p>
It's rational to put the baseline at the most negative end rather
the most positive end. It helps people make decisions correctly (such as "should I use gmail" etc), by confronting the risks rather than ignoring them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Google is n't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified values ?
Instead , it 's an organization of individuals Absolutely correct .
I do n't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil , heartless , money-grubbing mega-corporation that 's willing to do anything for a buck , as so many around here seem to think .
Yet that 's the lowest common denominator , by your own admission above .
It 's rational to put the baseline at the most negative end rather the most positive end .
It helps people make decisions correctly ( such as " should I use gmail " etc ) , by confronting the risks rather than ignoring them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Because Google isn't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified
  values?
Instead, it's an organization of individuals

Absolutely correct.
I don't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil,
  heartless, money-grubbing mega-corporation that's willing to do anything for
  a buck, as so many around here seem to think.
Yet that's the lowest common denominator, by your own admission above.
It's rational to put the baseline at the most negative end rather
the most positive end.
It helps people make decisions correctly (such as "should I use gmail" etc), by confronting the risks rather than ignoring them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598818</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>flyingsquid</author>
	<datestamp>1269450000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed 110\% percent. Many of the most successful companies are motivated by values, rather than profits alone. Google is a perfect example- they believe that providing free information, freely, is making the world a better place. Likewise, Apple believes (with cult-like intensity) that making technology easy to use and beautiful makes people's lives better.

 The desire to help people and make a positive difference is a powerful one. The Communists were naive to believe that altruism alone could make a society work, and that they could ignore self-interest. But it's equally foolish to think that self interest alone is the best way to run a company or a society. If that were true, why did Wall Street- motivated almost entirely by selfish greed- implode so spectacularly? The entire point of Wall Street is to make money, but in the end, their short-sighted selfishness caused them to lose billions of dollars and nearly cause a second Great Depression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed 110 \ % percent .
Many of the most successful companies are motivated by values , rather than profits alone .
Google is a perfect example- they believe that providing free information , freely , is making the world a better place .
Likewise , Apple believes ( with cult-like intensity ) that making technology easy to use and beautiful makes people 's lives better .
The desire to help people and make a positive difference is a powerful one .
The Communists were naive to believe that altruism alone could make a society work , and that they could ignore self-interest .
But it 's equally foolish to think that self interest alone is the best way to run a company or a society .
If that were true , why did Wall Street- motivated almost entirely by selfish greed- implode so spectacularly ?
The entire point of Wall Street is to make money , but in the end , their short-sighted selfishness caused them to lose billions of dollars and nearly cause a second Great Depression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed 110\% percent.
Many of the most successful companies are motivated by values, rather than profits alone.
Google is a perfect example- they believe that providing free information, freely, is making the world a better place.
Likewise, Apple believes (with cult-like intensity) that making technology easy to use and beautiful makes people's lives better.
The desire to help people and make a positive difference is a powerful one.
The Communists were naive to believe that altruism alone could make a society work, and that they could ignore self-interest.
But it's equally foolish to think that self interest alone is the best way to run a company or a society.
If that were true, why did Wall Street- motivated almost entirely by selfish greed- implode so spectacularly?
The entire point of Wall Street is to make money, but in the end, their short-sighted selfishness caused them to lose billions of dollars and nearly cause a second Great Depression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597118</id>
	<title>Re:A five year old.</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1269443400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking &mdash; and Google&rsquo;s policy.</p></div><p>So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications? A 5 year old?</p><p>I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..a five year old.</p><p>When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.</p></div><p>Did you live in the Soviet Union? Ever lived in a place like that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old , and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking    and Google    s policy.So , he 's saying a five year old understands the political system he 's living under and its ramifications ?
A 5 year old ? I 'd like to know what about the system made its mark on ..a five year old.When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.Did you live in the Soviet Union ?
Ever lived in a place like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking — and Google’s policy.So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications?
A 5 year old?I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on ..a five year old.When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.Did you live in the Soviet Union?
Ever lived in a place like that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597572</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. Sergey says only bad things about his motherland.</p></div><p>Hey Mr. Putin, nice to have you here in slashdot.<br>You can use Google Translate to get an OK translation from English To Russian...</p><p>oh I see</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Sergey says only bad things about his motherland.Hey Mr. Putin , nice to have you here in slashdot.You can use Google Translate to get an OK translation from English To Russian...oh I see</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Sergey says only bad things about his motherland.Hey Mr. Putin, nice to have you here in slashdot.You can use Google Translate to get an OK translation from English To Russian...oh I see
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599410</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1269452220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.</p></div> </blockquote><p>A corporation's goal is to serve the shared interests of those who own it, particularly those with voting rights. Usually, especially for a publicly traded corporation, those shared interests are effectively limited to financial returns (and particularly short-term ones) in one form or another; OTOH, when Google went public, they structured the stock ownership so the class of stock held by the original stockholders held disproportionate voting rights.  Hence, the shared interests of Google's owners -- particularly when weighted by voting rights -- are more likely to include longer-term and non-financial interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares .
A corporation 's goal is to serve the shared interests of those who own it , particularly those with voting rights .
Usually , especially for a publicly traded corporation , those shared interests are effectively limited to financial returns ( and particularly short-term ones ) in one form or another ; OTOH , when Google went public , they structured the stock ownership so the class of stock held by the original stockholders held disproportionate voting rights .
Hence , the shared interests of Google 's owners -- particularly when weighted by voting rights -- are more likely to include longer-term and non-financial interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.
A corporation's goal is to serve the shared interests of those who own it, particularly those with voting rights.
Usually, especially for a publicly traded corporation, those shared interests are effectively limited to financial returns (and particularly short-term ones) in one form or another; OTOH, when Google went public, they structured the stock ownership so the class of stock held by the original stockholders held disproportionate voting rights.
Hence, the shared interests of Google's owners -- particularly when weighted by voting rights -- are more likely to include longer-term and non-financial interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599680</id>
	<title>Google will never win</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269453180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will follow our laws, or they won't be doing business in our country. If they want to leave their 30\% market share behind, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Baidu has the other 70\% and will gladly take the 30\%.
<br> <br>
If they want to holler "human rights" and make up random junk about hackers, then they can GTFO. We will not knuckle under to a foreign corporation and give them extraterritoriality. The time for that has passed by more than 60 years. Google needs us more much more than we need them, although that's not saying much since we don't need Google at all.
<br> <br>
Complaining that China is not "open politically" or other such garbage is simply a code word for saying that China refuses to submit to American imperialism. I support that 150\%. China will never again be the lapdogs of the West. Long live the People's Republic of China!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will follow our laws , or they wo n't be doing business in our country .
If they want to leave their 30 \ % market share behind , do n't let the door hit you on the way out .
Baidu has the other 70 \ % and will gladly take the 30 \ % .
If they want to holler " human rights " and make up random junk about hackers , then they can GTFO .
We will not knuckle under to a foreign corporation and give them extraterritoriality .
The time for that has passed by more than 60 years .
Google needs us more much more than we need them , although that 's not saying much since we do n't need Google at all .
Complaining that China is not " open politically " or other such garbage is simply a code word for saying that China refuses to submit to American imperialism .
I support that 150 \ % .
China will never again be the lapdogs of the West .
Long live the People 's Republic of China !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will follow our laws, or they won't be doing business in our country.
If they want to leave their 30\% market share behind, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Baidu has the other 70\% and will gladly take the 30\%.
If they want to holler "human rights" and make up random junk about hackers, then they can GTFO.
We will not knuckle under to a foreign corporation and give them extraterritoriality.
The time for that has passed by more than 60 years.
Google needs us more much more than we need them, although that's not saying much since we don't need Google at all.
Complaining that China is not "open politically" or other such garbage is simply a code word for saying that China refuses to submit to American imperialism.
I support that 150\%.
China will never again be the lapdogs of the West.
Long live the People's Republic of China!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597552</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>cyfer2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269445260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think google is the winner too.  They may have lost their market in China, but they might have strengthened their image in out side China, especially US, where Bing was emerging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think google is the winner too .
They may have lost their market in China , but they might have strengthened their image in out side China , especially US , where Bing was emerging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think google is the winner too.
They may have lost their market in China, but they might have strengthened their image in out side China, especially US, where Bing was emerging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600320</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>number17</author>
	<datestamp>1269455580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, cheating trade nations.  I hope the US puts themselves on the top of that list.  Trade problems with the US have been a constant battle from Canada since the Free Trade Agreement was signed in the 90's.<br> <br>
There are so many complaints to the WTO that they've had to separate them into different catagories. <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/tratop\_E/dispu\_e/distabase\_wto\_members4\_e.htm" title="wto.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.wto.org/english/tratop\_E/dispu\_e/distabase\_wto\_members4\_e.htm</a> [wto.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , cheating trade nations .
I hope the US puts themselves on the top of that list .
Trade problems with the US have been a constant battle from Canada since the Free Trade Agreement was signed in the 90 's .
There are so many complaints to the WTO that they 've had to separate them into different catagories .
http : //www.wto.org/english/tratop \ _E/dispu \ _e/distabase \ _wto \ _members4 \ _e.htm [ wto.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, cheating trade nations.
I hope the US puts themselves on the top of that list.
Trade problems with the US have been a constant battle from Canada since the Free Trade Agreement was signed in the 90's.
There are so many complaints to the WTO that they've had to separate them into different catagories.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop\_E/dispu\_e/distabase\_wto\_members4\_e.htm [wto.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599848</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269453900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When one access google.cn, they should see "Results Filtered" immediately below. Click on that and get a brief, exact, and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Google has been doing that since the start of its presence in China. When a query has results removed, it said so at the bottom (something like "To comply with local laws, some results have been removed").</p><p>Indeed, this was one of the ways Google was making things better as the first thing political censorship systems censor is their own existence. For instance, see the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50\_Cent\_Party" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">50 cent party</a> [wikipedia.org] page for an example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When one access google.cn , they should see " Results Filtered " immediately below .
Click on that and get a brief , exact , and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected .
Google has been doing that since the start of its presence in China .
When a query has results removed , it said so at the bottom ( something like " To comply with local laws , some results have been removed " ) .Indeed , this was one of the ways Google was making things better as the first thing political censorship systems censor is their own existence .
For instance , see the 50 cent party [ wikipedia.org ] page for an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When one access google.cn, they should see "Results Filtered" immediately below.
Click on that and get a brief, exact, and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected.
Google has been doing that since the start of its presence in China.
When a query has results removed, it said so at the bottom (something like "To comply with local laws, some results have been removed").Indeed, this was one of the ways Google was making things better as the first thing political censorship systems censor is their own existence.
For instance, see the 50 cent party [wikipedia.org] page for an example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600456</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269456120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old? Please.</p></div><p>Specifically, in his case, it was the police visiting his home and anti-semitic behavior.  Sure, he might not have understood all the full implications of it at the time, but that kind of thing can be scary for a kid.<br> <br>
Furthermore, his dad was forced to study mathematics instead of astrophysics, which is what he wanted.  Imagine if someone said to you, "no, sorry, you can't study that. There is no freedom here."  So yes, he does have experience of a totalitarian regime, and you are person who spouts off without doing basic research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's that special " experience " of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he 's born up to 6 years old ?
Please.Specifically , in his case , it was the police visiting his home and anti-semitic behavior .
Sure , he might not have understood all the full implications of it at the time , but that kind of thing can be scary for a kid .
Furthermore , his dad was forced to study mathematics instead of astrophysics , which is what he wanted .
Imagine if someone said to you , " no , sorry , you ca n't study that .
There is no freedom here .
" So yes , he does have experience of a totalitarian regime , and you are person who spouts off without doing basic research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old?
Please.Specifically, in his case, it was the police visiting his home and anti-semitic behavior.
Sure, he might not have understood all the full implications of it at the time, but that kind of thing can be scary for a kid.
Furthermore, his dad was forced to study mathematics instead of astrophysics, which is what he wanted.
Imagine if someone said to you, "no, sorry, you can't study that.
There is no freedom here.
"  So yes, he does have experience of a totalitarian regime, and you are person who spouts off without doing basic research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597206</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like to justify the actions of corporations.  I think they all suck.  But, if we can refer to Brin here, we all make mistakes from time to time, and make bad decisions.  Sometimes, it takes something drastic to slap us in the faces.  Making a bad decision is human.  Making a stand afterwards and correcting it, is respectable.  Compare this to other search engine companies.  They are unlikely to ever take a stand as long as there is a dollar to be made.  Again, not trying to say google is all good, but just that if a company tries to do better, that is rare these days, and should be kept in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like to justify the actions of corporations .
I think they all suck .
But , if we can refer to Brin here , we all make mistakes from time to time , and make bad decisions .
Sometimes , it takes something drastic to slap us in the faces .
Making a bad decision is human .
Making a stand afterwards and correcting it , is respectable .
Compare this to other search engine companies .
They are unlikely to ever take a stand as long as there is a dollar to be made .
Again , not trying to say google is all good , but just that if a company tries to do better , that is rare these days , and should be kept in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like to justify the actions of corporations.
I think they all suck.
But, if we can refer to Brin here, we all make mistakes from time to time, and make bad decisions.
Sometimes, it takes something drastic to slap us in the faces.
Making a bad decision is human.
Making a stand afterwards and correcting it, is respectable.
Compare this to other search engine companies.
They are unlikely to ever take a stand as long as there is a dollar to be made.
Again, not trying to say google is all good, but just that if a company tries to do better, that is rare these days, and should be kept in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596810</id>
	<title>6 years old?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because @ 6 years old you have such a wealth of life experiences to draw on.  At 6, your whole world is controlled, and everything feels like something you cannot do, even if you live in the US.  Its called being a kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because @ 6 years old you have such a wealth of life experiences to draw on .
At 6 , your whole world is controlled , and everything feels like something you can not do , even if you live in the US .
Its called being a kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because @ 6 years old you have such a wealth of life experiences to draw on.
At 6, your whole world is controlled, and everything feels like something you cannot do, even if you live in the US.
Its called being a kid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598924</id>
	<title>Not impressed.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1269450300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The attitude prevalent around here seems to be one of gushing praise towards Google, like they've completely defied the Chinese government and are standing by their principles. Really, the only difference this move affords Google is that they are no longer mandated by the Chinese government to censor their search. It now falls on the Chinese government to do whatever they want to do.</p><p>Google hasn't actually left mainland China. Their research and sales divisions have remained behind. And their map services, music portal and Gmail servers all remain in China. So I'm left with the impression that this is a publicity stunt likely driven by a number of business-related issues. Gmail hosting remaining on the mainland doesn't even address one of the issues of spying on users.</p><p>Certainly, such a public action does make a statement, but I wouldn't necessarily consider Google principled any more than any other corporation. Profits are still king and they aren't willing to give up China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attitude prevalent around here seems to be one of gushing praise towards Google , like they 've completely defied the Chinese government and are standing by their principles .
Really , the only difference this move affords Google is that they are no longer mandated by the Chinese government to censor their search .
It now falls on the Chinese government to do whatever they want to do.Google has n't actually left mainland China .
Their research and sales divisions have remained behind .
And their map services , music portal and Gmail servers all remain in China .
So I 'm left with the impression that this is a publicity stunt likely driven by a number of business-related issues .
Gmail hosting remaining on the mainland does n't even address one of the issues of spying on users.Certainly , such a public action does make a statement , but I would n't necessarily consider Google principled any more than any other corporation .
Profits are still king and they are n't willing to give up China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attitude prevalent around here seems to be one of gushing praise towards Google, like they've completely defied the Chinese government and are standing by their principles.
Really, the only difference this move affords Google is that they are no longer mandated by the Chinese government to censor their search.
It now falls on the Chinese government to do whatever they want to do.Google hasn't actually left mainland China.
Their research and sales divisions have remained behind.
And their map services, music portal and Gmail servers all remain in China.
So I'm left with the impression that this is a publicity stunt likely driven by a number of business-related issues.
Gmail hosting remaining on the mainland doesn't even address one of the issues of spying on users.Certainly, such a public action does make a statement, but I wouldn't necessarily consider Google principled any more than any other corporation.
Profits are still king and they aren't willing to give up China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612504</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Daniel Phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1269538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing. And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well. They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers). I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet, this is a line in the sand they have drawn, to perhaps 'do no evil' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it....</p></div><p>I suspect you are right, having observed the three of them at work up close.  Except, I think that it is pretty much all Sergey and not Larry, who tends to demonstrate <a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-05/bay-area/17265306\_1\_larry-page-google-younger-employee" title="sfgate.com">flexible morality</a> [sfgate.com] from time to time.  The illustrious Dr Schmidt would appear to rather more concerned with the great issues of jousting with Microsoft and maximizing profit than making the world a better place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing .
And that Eric Schmidt is against it , and probably the rest of the board is as well .
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible , even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price ( again : see John Chambers ) .
I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet , this is a line in the sand they have drawn , to perhaps 'do no evil ' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it....I suspect you are right , having observed the three of them at work up close .
Except , I think that it is pretty much all Sergey and not Larry , who tends to demonstrate flexible morality [ sfgate.com ] from time to time .
The illustrious Dr Schmidt would appear to rather more concerned with the great issues of jousting with Microsoft and maximizing profit than making the world a better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing.
And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well.
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers).
I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet, this is a line in the sand they have drawn, to perhaps 'do no evil' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it....I suspect you are right, having observed the three of them at work up close.
Except, I think that it is pretty much all Sergey and not Larry, who tends to demonstrate flexible morality [sfgate.com] from time to time.
The illustrious Dr Schmidt would appear to rather more concerned with the great issues of jousting with Microsoft and maximizing profit than making the world a better place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601590</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly</p><p>Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article 35 .
Freedom of speech , press , assemblyCitizens of the People 's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech , of the press , of assembly , of association , of procession and of demonstration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article 35.
Freedom of speech, press, assemblyCitizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597322</id>
	<title>+nigga</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">*BSD but FreeBSD Usenet. In 1995,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>* BSD but FreeBSD Usenet .
In 1995 , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*BSD but FreeBSD Usenet.
In 1995, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596868</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1269442320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>pusillanimous</i></p><p>Ok, so I consider myself in possession of a decent vocabulary, and yet I'd never heard of this word.  For those that are like me, it means "cowardly, timid, faint of heart,  or lacking courage".</p><p>A lot of people claim Chambers is at fault for the GFWOC, but I don't know (seriously, I don't know) if that's accurate, as I am guessing there was a lot of pressure from the board (remember, he's only the CEO, if the Board tells him to jump monkeyboy jump he gets to.) due to financial reasons, to accept the contract to make it.</p><p>I think that says less about Chambers than it does the Board.</p><p>But I could be wrong.  Maybe I am.  I'm sure someone on here will correct me if I am.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pusillanimousOk , so I consider myself in possession of a decent vocabulary , and yet I 'd never heard of this word .
For those that are like me , it means " cowardly , timid , faint of heart , or lacking courage " .A lot of people claim Chambers is at fault for the GFWOC , but I do n't know ( seriously , I do n't know ) if that 's accurate , as I am guessing there was a lot of pressure from the board ( remember , he 's only the CEO , if the Board tells him to jump monkeyboy jump he gets to .
) due to financial reasons , to accept the contract to make it.I think that says less about Chambers than it does the Board.But I could be wrong .
Maybe I am .
I 'm sure someone on here will correct me if I am .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pusillanimousOk, so I consider myself in possession of a decent vocabulary, and yet I'd never heard of this word.
For those that are like me, it means "cowardly, timid, faint of heart,  or lacking courage".A lot of people claim Chambers is at fault for the GFWOC, but I don't know (seriously, I don't know) if that's accurate, as I am guessing there was a lot of pressure from the board (remember, he's only the CEO, if the Board tells him to jump monkeyboy jump he gets to.
) due to financial reasons, to accept the contract to make it.I think that says less about Chambers than it does the Board.But I could be wrong.
Maybe I am.
I'm sure someone on here will correct me if I am.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605750</id>
	<title>A tiny little mouse of thought.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269436800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable! - fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse - a little tiny mouse! - of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.

~Churchill
(Quote found using Google)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You see these dictators on their pedestals , surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police .
Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable !
- fear .
They are afraid of words and thoughts !
Words spoken abroad , thoughts stirring at home , all the more powerful because they are forbidden .
These terrify them .
A little mouse - a little tiny mouse !
- of thought appears in the room , and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic .
~ Churchill ( Quote found using Google )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police.
Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable!
- fear.
They are afraid of words and thoughts!
Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden.
These terrify them.
A little mouse - a little tiny mouse!
- of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.
~Churchill
(Quote found using Google)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601080</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269458460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this time, it's a bit different. Chinese simply don't give two hoot about Tibet, they really couldn't see what the fuss was about. But many of them are annoyed by the censorship, it will be harder for the Chinese government to simply dismiss Google's move as china-bashing, because censorship is real and Google is pretty respected there. It's not so much about insecurity, the Chinese government often resorts to stiring up anti-west sentiment and encourage nationalism to shore support for the party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this time , it 's a bit different .
Chinese simply do n't give two hoot about Tibet , they really could n't see what the fuss was about .
But many of them are annoyed by the censorship , it will be harder for the Chinese government to simply dismiss Google 's move as china-bashing , because censorship is real and Google is pretty respected there .
It 's not so much about insecurity , the Chinese government often resorts to stiring up anti-west sentiment and encourage nationalism to shore support for the party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this time, it's a bit different.
Chinese simply don't give two hoot about Tibet, they really couldn't see what the fuss was about.
But many of them are annoyed by the censorship, it will be harder for the Chinese government to simply dismiss Google's move as china-bashing, because censorship is real and Google is pretty respected there.
It's not so much about insecurity, the Chinese government often resorts to stiring up anti-west sentiment and encourage nationalism to shore support for the party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599768</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269453540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already used to make it "super apparent what is going on". Read this:<br>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html</p><p>Especially:<br>"Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Chinese users whenever search results have been removed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already used to make it " super apparent what is going on " .
Read this : http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.htmlEspecially : " Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Chinese users whenever search results have been removed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already used to make it "super apparent what is going on".
Read this:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.htmlEspecially:"Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Chinese users whenever search results have been removed.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598794</id>
	<title>China's authorities are illegitimate and unethical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269449940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it means the difference between life and death, or neighbours and family "disappearing", then, yeah. 6 years old is old enough to understand there is a big problem, but maybe not to know what exactly the alternatives are..</p><p>Problem is, most chinese citizens and victims to totalitarian regimes are stuck at that age-level. Those who aren't, tend to not live very long, or get locked up, tortured and abused in all kinds of way (think "medical research").</p><p>Do we really know what's going on in China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it means the difference between life and death , or neighbours and family " disappearing " , then , yeah .
6 years old is old enough to understand there is a big problem , but maybe not to know what exactly the alternatives are..Problem is , most chinese citizens and victims to totalitarian regimes are stuck at that age-level .
Those who are n't , tend to not live very long , or get locked up , tortured and abused in all kinds of way ( think " medical research " ) .Do we really know what 's going on in China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it means the difference between life and death, or neighbours and family "disappearing", then, yeah.
6 years old is old enough to understand there is a big problem, but maybe not to know what exactly the alternatives are..Problem is, most chinese citizens and victims to totalitarian regimes are stuck at that age-level.
Those who aren't, tend to not live very long, or get locked up, tortured and abused in all kinds of way (think "medical research").Do we really know what's going on in China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598130</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Stick32</author>
	<datestamp>1269447660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know I hear this all the time the old "if they were big on the 'do no evil' why did they ever agree to censor in the first place" argument.  So by that reasoning they should have stayed out of China for what?  So they could take the moral high ground?  So they could maybe make the Chinese people wish/demand a service they didn't know they were missing out on?  Did you ever consider that Google knew that there is nothing that they could ever do to end censorship in China. That they could censor themselves and provide the Chinese people a method of communication (gmail, buzz, etc...)safe from the prying eyes of the government. Wouldn't they be pissed if it came to pass that the government possibly hacked them after they followed all of THEIR rules.  In order to get access to this free and private communication that Google hoped to provide.

Now I'm no Google insider.  I'm only playing the 'google's advocate' to turn a phrase.  I can only speculate as to their intentions.  Given Google's past and philosophy, this is the only scenario that makes sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know I hear this all the time the old " if they were big on the 'do no evil ' why did they ever agree to censor in the first place " argument .
So by that reasoning they should have stayed out of China for what ?
So they could take the moral high ground ?
So they could maybe make the Chinese people wish/demand a service they did n't know they were missing out on ?
Did you ever consider that Google knew that there is nothing that they could ever do to end censorship in China .
That they could censor themselves and provide the Chinese people a method of communication ( gmail , buzz , etc... ) safe from the prying eyes of the government .
Would n't they be pissed if it came to pass that the government possibly hacked them after they followed all of THEIR rules .
In order to get access to this free and private communication that Google hoped to provide .
Now I 'm no Google insider .
I 'm only playing the 'google 's advocate ' to turn a phrase .
I can only speculate as to their intentions .
Given Google 's past and philosophy , this is the only scenario that makes sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know I hear this all the time the old "if they were big on the 'do no evil' why did they ever agree to censor in the first place" argument.
So by that reasoning they should have stayed out of China for what?
So they could take the moral high ground?
So they could maybe make the Chinese people wish/demand a service they didn't know they were missing out on?
Did you ever consider that Google knew that there is nothing that they could ever do to end censorship in China.
That they could censor themselves and provide the Chinese people a method of communication (gmail, buzz, etc...)safe from the prying eyes of the government.
Wouldn't they be pissed if it came to pass that the government possibly hacked them after they followed all of THEIR rules.
In order to get access to this free and private communication that Google hoped to provide.
Now I'm no Google insider.
I'm only playing the 'google's advocate' to turn a phrase.
I can only speculate as to their intentions.
Given Google's past and philosophy, this is the only scenario that makes sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598526</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>nahdude812</author>
	<datestamp>1269449040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how you got marked insightful when you deserve either troll or flamebait.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Yes, business is personal, especially these days." Right. Google was losing market share in China. I bet that if it wasn't, business wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being "personal".</p></div></blockquote><p>Google is refusing to capitulate to a totalitarian government, and is therefore <em>giving up market share</em> to stand by its values.  That sure sounds personal rather than a business decision to me.</p><blockquote><div><p>And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old? Please.</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10/03/24/1227201&amp;cid=31597036" title="slashdot.org">See here for a first-hand account of exactly how aware a 6 year old child is under a totalitarian regime.</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Google is earning my respect in a <em>big way</em> with how they are dealing with China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how you got marked insightful when you deserve either troll or flamebait .
" Yes , business is personal , especially these days .
" Right .
Google was losing market share in China .
I bet that if it was n't , business would n't have gotten anywhere near being " personal " .Google is refusing to capitulate to a totalitarian government , and is therefore giving up market share to stand by its values .
That sure sounds personal rather than a business decision to me.And what 's that special " experience " of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he 's born up to 6 years old ?
Please. See here for a first-hand account of exactly how aware a 6 year old child is under a totalitarian regime .
[ slashdot.org ] Google is earning my respect in a big way with how they are dealing with China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how you got marked insightful when you deserve either troll or flamebait.
"Yes, business is personal, especially these days.
" Right.
Google was losing market share in China.
I bet that if it wasn't, business wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being "personal".Google is refusing to capitulate to a totalitarian government, and is therefore giving up market share to stand by its values.
That sure sounds personal rather than a business decision to me.And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old?
Please. See here for a first-hand account of exactly how aware a 6 year old child is under a totalitarian regime.
[slashdot.org]Google is earning my respect in a big way with how they are dealing with China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598358</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For someone as educated, successful, and intelligent as Mr. Brin, he sounds awfully ignorant.  China is not the Soviet Union; USSR did not have 1.2B people.</p><p>If you want to do business in another country you have to follow that country's laws, customs, and culture--doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.  If you can't accepted that then don't do business there, and don't mask your own business failure as a political issue.  It's childish, immature, and neo-imperialism to walk into other people's country and expect to be #1 just because you're from the US.  I'm sure US wouldn't appreciate it if a Middle-Eastern company comes in and start criticizing how US women don't wear head scarfs at work.</p><p>Western companies will have to compete and do actual hard work to win--it's not hard work to outsource the actual thinking and doing to India and China and exepct you can just manage your way to success.  Years ago when Japanese car companies came to the US what did the US companies do when they don't want to compete head-on?  They whine about Japanese gov't subsidies, the unfair business environment, the manipulation of currency--instead of improve quality they used politics and now we see the consequence of that in GM and Chrysler.</p><p>Google needs to understand why Baidu is used more than Google.  Is it because Baidu offers a little bit more of the things Chinese users want?  Is it because Baidu is more culturally in-tune and Google is really just an extension of US culture?  A search engine is just a search engine every tech company has that technology--Bing has it, Baidu has it.  Sure underneathe maybe Google runs better but is it really that noticeable?  Google is worshipped in its home market because of this technology aura.  In other countries it's just another search enigine.  How about instead of expecting people to flock to you, turn the table around: sponsor schools, give out encyclopedia to school kids, etc.  Think outside of the box instead of just trading on the Google name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For someone as educated , successful , and intelligent as Mr. Brin , he sounds awfully ignorant .
China is not the Soviet Union ; USSR did not have 1.2B people.If you want to do business in another country you have to follow that country 's laws , customs , and culture--does n't matter if you agree with them or not .
If you ca n't accepted that then do n't do business there , and do n't mask your own business failure as a political issue .
It 's childish , immature , and neo-imperialism to walk into other people 's country and expect to be # 1 just because you 're from the US .
I 'm sure US would n't appreciate it if a Middle-Eastern company comes in and start criticizing how US women do n't wear head scarfs at work.Western companies will have to compete and do actual hard work to win--it 's not hard work to outsource the actual thinking and doing to India and China and exepct you can just manage your way to success .
Years ago when Japanese car companies came to the US what did the US companies do when they do n't want to compete head-on ?
They whine about Japanese gov't subsidies , the unfair business environment , the manipulation of currency--instead of improve quality they used politics and now we see the consequence of that in GM and Chrysler.Google needs to understand why Baidu is used more than Google .
Is it because Baidu offers a little bit more of the things Chinese users want ?
Is it because Baidu is more culturally in-tune and Google is really just an extension of US culture ?
A search engine is just a search engine every tech company has that technology--Bing has it , Baidu has it .
Sure underneathe maybe Google runs better but is it really that noticeable ?
Google is worshipped in its home market because of this technology aura .
In other countries it 's just another search enigine .
How about instead of expecting people to flock to you , turn the table around : sponsor schools , give out encyclopedia to school kids , etc .
Think outside of the box instead of just trading on the Google name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For someone as educated, successful, and intelligent as Mr. Brin, he sounds awfully ignorant.
China is not the Soviet Union; USSR did not have 1.2B people.If you want to do business in another country you have to follow that country's laws, customs, and culture--doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.
If you can't accepted that then don't do business there, and don't mask your own business failure as a political issue.
It's childish, immature, and neo-imperialism to walk into other people's country and expect to be #1 just because you're from the US.
I'm sure US wouldn't appreciate it if a Middle-Eastern company comes in and start criticizing how US women don't wear head scarfs at work.Western companies will have to compete and do actual hard work to win--it's not hard work to outsource the actual thinking and doing to India and China and exepct you can just manage your way to success.
Years ago when Japanese car companies came to the US what did the US companies do when they don't want to compete head-on?
They whine about Japanese gov't subsidies, the unfair business environment, the manipulation of currency--instead of improve quality they used politics and now we see the consequence of that in GM and Chrysler.Google needs to understand why Baidu is used more than Google.
Is it because Baidu offers a little bit more of the things Chinese users want?
Is it because Baidu is more culturally in-tune and Google is really just an extension of US culture?
A search engine is just a search engine every tech company has that technology--Bing has it, Baidu has it.
Sure underneathe maybe Google runs better but is it really that noticeable?
Google is worshipped in its home market because of this technology aura.
In other countries it's just another search enigine.
How about instead of expecting people to flock to you, turn the table around: sponsor schools, give out encyclopedia to school kids, etc.
Think outside of the box instead of just trading on the Google name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596894</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Hong Kong move pretty much nukes that strategy. Now China is allowing access to some of its citizens, but not others. Google is not at fault for the blocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hong Kong move pretty much nukes that strategy .
Now China is allowing access to some of its citizens , but not others .
Google is not at fault for the blocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hong Kong move pretty much nukes that strategy.
Now China is allowing access to some of its citizens, but not others.
Google is not at fault for the blocking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034</id>
	<title>Totalitarianism is not always bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately for Google, totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances. For example, totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions. Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.
<br>
Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it <i>always</i> was totalitarian. Like it or not, it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet. So, under the circumstances, it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future, not vice-versa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for Google , totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances .
For example , totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions .
Today 's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU .
Do n't forget , during the last twenty centuries , China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries , and it always was totalitarian .
Like it or not , it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet .
So , under the circumstances , it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future , not vice-versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for Google, totalitarian systems are very effective under some circumstances.
For example, totalitarianism proved to be the most effective system during large-scaled wars and other dire conditions.
Today's growth of Chinese GDP proves that it is more effective in current economical situation than either US or EU.
Don't forget, during the last twenty centuries, China had the largest economy on Earth for 18 centuries, and it always was totalitarian.
Like it or not, it will soon regain its position as the largest economy on the planet.
So, under the circumstances, it is Google who needs China to stay relevant in future, not vice-versa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598042</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>mwigmani</author>
	<datestamp>1269447300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned that word from The Simpsons:</p><blockquote><div><p>Moe: "Alright, tell me when I hit the sweet spot."<br>
Homer: "Deeper, you pusillanimous pilsner pusher!"<br>
Moe: "All right, all right."<br>
Homer: "De-fense! Ooh! Ooh! De-fense! Ooh! Ooh!"</p></div>
</blockquote><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOMR" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOMR</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned that word from The Simpsons : Moe : " Alright , tell me when I hit the sweet spot .
" Homer : " Deeper , you pusillanimous pilsner pusher !
" Moe : " All right , all right .
" Homer : " De-fense !
Ooh ! Ooh !
De-fense ! Ooh !
Ooh ! " http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOMR [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned that word from The Simpsons:Moe: "Alright, tell me when I hit the sweet spot.
"
Homer: "Deeper, you pusillanimous pilsner pusher!
"
Moe: "All right, all right.
"
Homer: "De-fense!
Ooh! Ooh!
De-fense! Ooh!
Ooh!"
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOMR [wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269443880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy?</i></p><p>Because Google isn't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified values?  Instead, it's an organization of individuals, with varying viewpoints, and those individuals will wield different levels of power at different times.</p><p>In this particular case, my money is on Schmidt and the board overriding Larry and Sergei on the censorship issue based on the obvious business case of moving into China.  Plus, they may have been able to rationalize the move by telling themselves that they might be able to do some good in the country by operating there (many people who criticize Google for threatening to leave China do so based on precisely this principle).</p><p>But now that there's an obvious business reason *not* to operate in China (the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government), Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google, the organization, in a different direction.</p><p>At least, that's my read of the situation.  But I'm obviously biased, in that I don't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil, heartless, money-grubbing mega-corporation that's willing to do anything for a buck, as so many around here seem to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy ? Because Google is n't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified values ?
Instead , it 's an organization of individuals , with varying viewpoints , and those individuals will wield different levels of power at different times.In this particular case , my money is on Schmidt and the board overriding Larry and Sergei on the censorship issue based on the obvious business case of moving into China .
Plus , they may have been able to rationalize the move by telling themselves that they might be able to do some good in the country by operating there ( many people who criticize Google for threatening to leave China do so based on precisely this principle ) .But now that there 's an obvious business reason * not * to operate in China ( the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government ) , Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google , the organization , in a different direction.At least , that 's my read of the situation .
But I 'm obviously biased , in that I do n't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil , heartless , money-grubbing mega-corporation that 's willing to do anything for a buck , as so many around here seem to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy?Because Google isn't a monolithic entity with a singular set of unified values?
Instead, it's an organization of individuals, with varying viewpoints, and those individuals will wield different levels of power at different times.In this particular case, my money is on Schmidt and the board overriding Larry and Sergei on the censorship issue based on the obvious business case of moving into China.
Plus, they may have been able to rationalize the move by telling themselves that they might be able to do some good in the country by operating there (many people who criticize Google for threatening to leave China do so based on precisely this principle).But now that there's an obvious business reason *not* to operate in China (the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government), Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google, the organization, in a different direction.At least, that's my read of the situation.
But I'm obviously biased, in that I don't start off with the supposition that Google is a fundamentally evil, heartless, money-grubbing mega-corporation that's willing to do anything for a buck, as so many around here seem to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602638</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269464340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His parents graduated the Moscow State University. They did not pay for their studies at all, not a penny.</p></div><p>Well, except for the fact that the Soviet citizens earned about <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls" title="usda.gov">one seventh to one eighth</a> [usda.gov] as much as their American counterparts. So, yeah, except for the ~85\% tax for the rest of their lives, their education was totally free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His parents graduated the Moscow State University .
They did not pay for their studies at all , not a penny.Well , except for the fact that the Soviet citizens earned about one seventh to one eighth [ usda.gov ] as much as their American counterparts .
So , yeah , except for the ~ 85 \ % tax for the rest of their lives , their education was totally free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His parents graduated the Moscow State University.
They did not pay for their studies at all, not a penny.Well, except for the fact that the Soviet citizens earned about one seventh to one eighth [usda.gov] as much as their American counterparts.
So, yeah, except for the ~85\% tax for the rest of their lives, their education was totally free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596832</id>
	<title>what Brin really learnt from the USSR...</title>
	<author>FuckingNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1269442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...was that there's always someone who ends up controlling the flow of information, so that someone might as well be you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...was that there 's always someone who ends up controlling the flow of information , so that someone might as well be you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...was that there's always someone who ends up controlling the flow of information, so that someone might as well be you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Yes, business is personal, especially these days." Right. Google was losing market share in China. I bet that if it wasn't, business wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being "personal".
<p>
And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old?  Please.
</p><p>
A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares. Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , business is personal , especially these days .
" Right .
Google was losing market share in China .
I bet that if it was n't , business would n't have gotten anywhere near being " personal " .
And what 's that special " experience " of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he 's born up to 6 years old ?
Please . A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares .
Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing , and at worst utter hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, business is personal, especially these days.
" Right.
Google was losing market share in China.
I bet that if it wasn't, business wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being "personal".
And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old?
Please.

A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.
Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605632</id>
	<title>Re:did you see the latest "alice in wonderland"?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269435660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opium is not heroin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opium is not heroin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opium is not heroin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601472</id>
	<title>Smart guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269459840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't even remember what color my room looked like at 6yr old. Dude must have an elephant's memory.
<br>
<br>

FYI, until I was 7, I lived in NYC, albeit my parents were not involved with universities (as with Sergey's parents). Hence, (following TFA's logic) I can feel the pain and understand for those Nau Yawkers.

<br> <br>
<br> <br> <br>
<i>The picture is bigger than you thought</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't even remember what color my room looked like at 6yr old .
Dude must have an elephant 's memory .
FYI , until I was 7 , I lived in NYC , albeit my parents were not involved with universities ( as with Sergey 's parents ) .
Hence , ( following TFA 's logic ) I can feel the pain and understand for those Nau Yawkers .
The picture is bigger than you thought</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't even remember what color my room looked like at 6yr old.
Dude must have an elephant's memory.
FYI, until I was 7, I lived in NYC, albeit my parents were not involved with universities (as with Sergey's parents).
Hence, (following TFA's logic) I can feel the pain and understand for those Nau Yawkers.
The picture is bigger than you thought</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612584</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Daniel Phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1269538320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy?</p></div><p>Disagreement between Larry and Eric on the one hand and Sergey on the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy ? Disagreement between Larry and Eric on the one hand and Sergey on the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy?Disagreement between Larry and Eric on the one hand and Sergey on the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597256</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1269444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares."<br> <br>

This is, of course, by order of the US court system, and coincidentally a result of a similar attempt by Ford to use his corporation spread a certain ethical principle:<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Company" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Company</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A corporation 's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares .
" This is , of course , by order of the US court system , and coincidentally a result of a similar attempt by Ford to use his corporation spread a certain ethical principle : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge \ _v. \ _Ford \ _Motor \ _Company [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A corporation's goal is to increase its profits &amp; market shares.
" 

This is, of course, by order of the US court system, and coincidentally a result of a similar attempt by Ford to use his corporation spread a certain ethical principle: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Company [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599906</id>
	<title>Re:Google = United States</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1269454080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure about that? When I was in China I asked a local if they hated the British due to the opium wars, she just laughed and said no not at all. She said some of the older folks didn't like the Japanese but otherwise the opium wars were an irrelevant historical item. Do you have anything to back up your claim that Chinese people really think that way? I only have an anecdote, but you presented nothing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure about that ?
When I was in China I asked a local if they hated the British due to the opium wars , she just laughed and said no not at all .
She said some of the older folks did n't like the Japanese but otherwise the opium wars were an irrelevant historical item .
Do you have anything to back up your claim that Chinese people really think that way ?
I only have an anecdote , but you presented nothing ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure about that?
When I was in China I asked a local if they hated the British due to the opium wars, she just laughed and said no not at all.
She said some of the older folks didn't like the Japanese but otherwise the opium wars were an irrelevant historical item.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that Chinese people really think that way?
I only have an anecdote, but you presented nothing ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792</id>
	<title>A five year old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking &mdash; and Google&rsquo;s policy.</p> </div><p>So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications? A 5 year old?</p><p>I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..a five year old.</p><p>When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old , and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking    and Google    s policy .
So , he 's saying a five year old understands the political system he 's living under and its ramifications ?
A 5 year old ? I 'd like to know what about the system made its mark on ..a five year old.When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking — and Google’s policy.
So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications?
A 5 year old?I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on ..a five year old.When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601346</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269459300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's more, according to the background philosophy of our system, there's basically nothing that overrides morality.  Read Adam Smith and John Locke, or even the Declaration of Independence.  Basic idea: morality is morality.  People should be moral.  There isn't a law or a contract that can invalidate that.
</p><p>The idea that corporations should increase their profit is fine.  The idea that they have no moral obligations is not fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more , according to the background philosophy of our system , there 's basically nothing that overrides morality .
Read Adam Smith and John Locke , or even the Declaration of Independence .
Basic idea : morality is morality .
People should be moral .
There is n't a law or a contract that can invalidate that .
The idea that corporations should increase their profit is fine .
The idea that they have no moral obligations is not fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more, according to the background philosophy of our system, there's basically nothing that overrides morality.
Read Adam Smith and John Locke, or even the Declaration of Independence.
Basic idea: morality is morality.
People should be moral.
There isn't a law or a contract that can invalidate that.
The idea that corporations should increase their profit is fine.
The idea that they have no moral obligations is not fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1269444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has been a history of officials over there going "We have these rules but we can negotiate and work out what is necessary for you to come and do business here".  Although it isn't new or exclusive to China to have a government just change the rules out from under people or companies "just because" some of the scales are quite egregious.  So I wouldn't be surprised if Google says "We like to come to China but censored searches messes with our technology" while their government said "We have our differences for the moment but setup shop here and we can work it out later".  Later is now here and it didn't help they have a hunch where the hacking attacks are coming from....</p><p>I wonder if the best idea is for Google to stay in China but make it super apparent what is going on.  When one access google.(country code) they should see the usual localized Google.  When one access google.cn, they should see "Results Filtered" immediately below.  Click on that and get a brief, exact, and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected.  The Chinese net users won't be in favor of Google's actions unless they are aware of how it effects them.  If they can't show them what they are missing, the next best thing is to let them know they are missing out where the worst would be pulling the plug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been a history of officials over there going " We have these rules but we can negotiate and work out what is necessary for you to come and do business here " .
Although it is n't new or exclusive to China to have a government just change the rules out from under people or companies " just because " some of the scales are quite egregious .
So I would n't be surprised if Google says " We like to come to China but censored searches messes with our technology " while their government said " We have our differences for the moment but setup shop here and we can work it out later " .
Later is now here and it did n't help they have a hunch where the hacking attacks are coming from....I wonder if the best idea is for Google to stay in China but make it super apparent what is going on .
When one access google .
( country code ) they should see the usual localized Google .
When one access google.cn , they should see " Results Filtered " immediately below .
Click on that and get a brief , exact , and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected .
The Chinese net users wo n't be in favor of Google 's actions unless they are aware of how it effects them .
If they ca n't show them what they are missing , the next best thing is to let them know they are missing out where the worst would be pulling the plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been a history of officials over there going "We have these rules but we can negotiate and work out what is necessary for you to come and do business here".
Although it isn't new or exclusive to China to have a government just change the rules out from under people or companies "just because" some of the scales are quite egregious.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Google says "We like to come to China but censored searches messes with our technology" while their government said "We have our differences for the moment but setup shop here and we can work it out later".
Later is now here and it didn't help they have a hunch where the hacking attacks are coming from....I wonder if the best idea is for Google to stay in China but make it super apparent what is going on.
When one access google.
(country code) they should see the usual localized Google.
When one access google.cn, they should see "Results Filtered" immediately below.
Click on that and get a brief, exact, and legal citation explaining why the quality of service is effected.
The Chinese net users won't be in favor of Google's actions unless they are aware of how it effects them.
If they can't show them what they are missing, the next best thing is to let them know they are missing out where the worst would be pulling the plug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596906</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would stay in the Chinese market too.   But I'd use it as an opportunity to educate:  "This page blocked by your government.  Go here to sign a petition to have the block removed: [link]"</p><p>Comply with the law, but bend the rules as much as possible so that maybe, in 10-20 years, the censorship will be lifted from google.com searches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would stay in the Chinese market too .
But I 'd use it as an opportunity to educate : " This page blocked by your government .
Go here to sign a petition to have the block removed : [ link ] " Comply with the law , but bend the rules as much as possible so that maybe , in 10-20 years , the censorship will be lifted from google.com searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would stay in the Chinese market too.
But I'd use it as an opportunity to educate:  "This page blocked by your government.
Go here to sign a petition to have the block removed: [link]"Comply with the law, but bend the rules as much as possible so that maybe, in 10-20 years, the censorship will be lifted from google.com searches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598982</id>
	<title>I knew it</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1269450540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew one of those two (other being Larry Page) was responsible for this un-capitalistic decision. Way to go Mr. Brin! Someone must take a right step instead of the more convenient one once in a while.<br>I used to use AltaVista search to boycott Google because it censored stuff in China. Then I learned A. was now owned by Yahoo who did the same and worse things. I wasn't happy about not being able to find another alternative (Bing wasn't in existence yet) and I'm still not - but at least now when I use Google, I can put my mind at ease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew one of those two ( other being Larry Page ) was responsible for this un-capitalistic decision .
Way to go Mr. Brin ! Someone must take a right step instead of the more convenient one once in a while.I used to use AltaVista search to boycott Google because it censored stuff in China .
Then I learned A. was now owned by Yahoo who did the same and worse things .
I was n't happy about not being able to find another alternative ( Bing was n't in existence yet ) and I 'm still not - but at least now when I use Google , I can put my mind at ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew one of those two (other being Larry Page) was responsible for this un-capitalistic decision.
Way to go Mr. Brin! Someone must take a right step instead of the more convenient one once in a while.I used to use AltaVista search to boycott Google because it censored stuff in China.
Then I learned A. was now owned by Yahoo who did the same and worse things.
I wasn't happy about not being able to find another alternative (Bing wasn't in existence yet) and I'm still not - but at least now when I use Google, I can put my mind at ease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597212</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1269444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting their foot in the door, maybe?</p><p>Or possibly the result of an internal power shift within Google.  Plenty of sources have indicated that there are mixed opinions within Google on the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting their foot in the door , maybe ? Or possibly the result of an internal power shift within Google .
Plenty of sources have indicated that there are mixed opinions within Google on the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting their foot in the door, maybe?Or possibly the result of an internal power shift within Google.
Plenty of sources have indicated that there are mixed opinions within Google on the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could see the same thing about the protestors that interrupted the torch carrying ceremonies prior to the Beijing olympics.  Most chinese didn't view those as a criticism of the their government, but as an attach on chinese people.  To say that Americans are used to people criticizing the U.S. government is an understatement, but this is not so in China.  I'm tempted to chalk a lot of it up to the immersive indoctrination and political thought control that goes on in China, e.g. every Chinese college student has to take Mao Ze Dong thought, Deng Xiaoping thought, as well as military tactics and strategy.  However, there's also a deep seated insecurity in the Chinese people -- for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them.  I can't tell if that itself is due to propaganda campaigns waged by the government or what though.  Sometimes the U.S. government does this too, e.g. when G.W. Bush &amp; Co painted anyone who criticized the attacks on Iraq as an unpatriotic traitor, including places like France, but also U.S. citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could see the same thing about the protestors that interrupted the torch carrying ceremonies prior to the Beijing olympics .
Most chinese did n't view those as a criticism of the their government , but as an attach on chinese people .
To say that Americans are used to people criticizing the U.S. government is an understatement , but this is not so in China .
I 'm tempted to chalk a lot of it up to the immersive indoctrination and political thought control that goes on in China , e.g .
every Chinese college student has to take Mao Ze Dong thought , Deng Xiaoping thought , as well as military tactics and strategy .
However , there 's also a deep seated insecurity in the Chinese people -- for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them .
I ca n't tell if that itself is due to propaganda campaigns waged by the government or what though .
Sometimes the U.S. government does this too , e.g .
when G.W .
Bush &amp; Co painted anyone who criticized the attacks on Iraq as an unpatriotic traitor , including places like France , but also U.S. citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could see the same thing about the protestors that interrupted the torch carrying ceremonies prior to the Beijing olympics.
Most chinese didn't view those as a criticism of the their government, but as an attach on chinese people.
To say that Americans are used to people criticizing the U.S. government is an understatement, but this is not so in China.
I'm tempted to chalk a lot of it up to the immersive indoctrination and political thought control that goes on in China, e.g.
every Chinese college student has to take Mao Ze Dong thought, Deng Xiaoping thought, as well as military tactics and strategy.
However, there's also a deep seated insecurity in the Chinese people -- for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them.
I can't tell if that itself is due to propaganda campaigns waged by the government or what though.
Sometimes the U.S. government does this too, e.g.
when G.W.
Bush &amp; Co painted anyone who criticized the attacks on Iraq as an unpatriotic traitor, including places like France, but also U.S. citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</id>
	<title>Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His parents graduated the Moscow State University. They did not pay for their studies at all, not a penny. His parents are mathematicians.</p><p>Yes, the USSR was not too nice a place, its population is being traumatized by an ugly massive civil war, which is not over even by now, and WW2. But sometimes one could at least say "Thank you" for those good things.</p><p>No. Sergey says only bad things about his motherland. For example, he said that Russia is "Nigeria with snow". And here again, that he even in 6 years knew oppression (what cannot be true).</p><p>Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents. I think this is about the same case. A shallow ungrateful, but lucky mushroom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His parents graduated the Moscow State University .
They did not pay for their studies at all , not a penny .
His parents are mathematicians.Yes , the USSR was not too nice a place , its population is being traumatized by an ugly massive civil war , which is not over even by now , and WW2 .
But sometimes one could at least say " Thank you " for those good things.No .
Sergey says only bad things about his motherland .
For example , he said that Russia is " Nigeria with snow " .
And here again , that he even in 6 years knew oppression ( what can not be true ) .Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents .
I think this is about the same case .
A shallow ungrateful , but lucky mushroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His parents graduated the Moscow State University.
They did not pay for their studies at all, not a penny.
His parents are mathematicians.Yes, the USSR was not too nice a place, its population is being traumatized by an ugly massive civil war, which is not over even by now, and WW2.
But sometimes one could at least say "Thank you" for those good things.No.
Sergey says only bad things about his motherland.
For example, he said that Russia is "Nigeria with snow".
And here again, that he even in 6 years knew oppression (what cannot be true).Psychologists advise keep away from individuals who hate their parents.
I think this is about the same case.
A shallow ungrateful, but lucky mushroom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597786</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269446400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you have never lived in a totalitarian regime, you are the one spitting out the Bull...</p><p>Children in communist countries are taught from a very early age to shut their mouths as repeating anything that is said in their house that is not in line with the political view of the leaders can lead to the entire family disappearing....</p><p>This has a real effect on children as soon as they can talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you have never lived in a totalitarian regime , you are the one spitting out the Bull...Children in communist countries are taught from a very early age to shut their mouths as repeating anything that is said in their house that is not in line with the political view of the leaders can lead to the entire family disappearing....This has a real effect on children as soon as they can talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you have never lived in a totalitarian regime, you are the one spitting out the Bull...Children in communist countries are taught from a very early age to shut their mouths as repeating anything that is said in their house that is not in line with the political view of the leaders can lead to the entire family disappearing....This has a real effect on children as soon as they can talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603176</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269423300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US and Canada are each other's biggest trade partners.  If you read through that stuff it is very minor compared to the volume of trade.  And nothing compared to currency manipulation, lead toys, toxic dry wall, killer pet food, and poison milk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US and Canada are each other 's biggest trade partners .
If you read through that stuff it is very minor compared to the volume of trade .
And nothing compared to currency manipulation , lead toys , toxic dry wall , killer pet food , and poison milk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US and Canada are each other's biggest trade partners.
If you read through that stuff it is very minor compared to the volume of trade.
And nothing compared to currency manipulation, lead toys, toxic dry wall, killer pet food, and poison milk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601588</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i> Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated.</i> </p></div><p>You would think they could get along, with them both being communist and all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated .
You would think they could get along , with them both being communist and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated.
You would think they could get along, with them both being communist and all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597566</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1269445380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, not only were they apparently hacked; but, they were (their data was) being used to find information on potential dissidents.  This may have pushed too far beyond what they initially considered an acceptable bending of their principles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not only were they apparently hacked ; but , they were ( their data was ) being used to find information on potential dissidents .
This may have pushed too far beyond what they initially considered an acceptable bending of their principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not only were they apparently hacked; but, they were (their data was) being used to find information on potential dissidents.
This may have pushed too far beyond what they initially considered an acceptable bending of their principles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603414</id>
	<title>Re:6 years old</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1269424140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just about politics and current events, it's about culture as well. I get that. Look at it this way: when you were 6, had your parents taught you not to accept rides or candy from strangers? Well, imagine that kind of thing, plus being taught one or more of the following:</p><ul>
<li>that there are things you must (never) say when someone in a uniform asks you a question</li><li>that the man accompanying the class on the field trip works for the government</li><li>not to mention that your aunt married a Jewish man</li><li>not to mention that you are Jewish</li><li>not to mention that you are Muslim</li><li>not to mention that your family goes to church</li><li>not to mention that your family doesn't go to church</li><li>not to go into the field with the big sign with a skull and crossbones</li><li>what a curfew is</li><li>etc.</li></ul><p>Any child who has to be taught any of the above things is living in an oppressed society (not necessarily by their own government, in the minefield case), and will remember and recognise what these things mean as they get older.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just about politics and current events , it 's about culture as well .
I get that .
Look at it this way : when you were 6 , had your parents taught you not to accept rides or candy from strangers ?
Well , imagine that kind of thing , plus being taught one or more of the following : that there are things you must ( never ) say when someone in a uniform asks you a questionthat the man accompanying the class on the field trip works for the governmentnot to mention that your aunt married a Jewish mannot to mention that you are Jewishnot to mention that you are Muslimnot to mention that your family goes to churchnot to mention that your family does n't go to churchnot to go into the field with the big sign with a skull and crossboneswhat a curfew isetc.Any child who has to be taught any of the above things is living in an oppressed society ( not necessarily by their own government , in the minefield case ) , and will remember and recognise what these things mean as they get older .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just about politics and current events, it's about culture as well.
I get that.
Look at it this way: when you were 6, had your parents taught you not to accept rides or candy from strangers?
Well, imagine that kind of thing, plus being taught one or more of the following:
that there are things you must (never) say when someone in a uniform asks you a questionthat the man accompanying the class on the field trip works for the governmentnot to mention that your aunt married a Jewish mannot to mention that you are Jewishnot to mention that you are Muslimnot to mention that your family goes to churchnot to mention that your family doesn't go to churchnot to go into the field with the big sign with a skull and crossboneswhat a curfew isetc.Any child who has to be taught any of the above things is living in an oppressed society (not necessarily by their own government, in the minefield case), and will remember and recognise what these things mean as they get older.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605476</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>arantius</author>
	<datestamp>1269434640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy</p><p>Straight from the horse's mouth:<br><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html</a> [blogspot.com]<br>"Obviously, the situation in China is far different than it is in those other countries; while China has made great strides in the past decades, it remains in many ways closed. We aren't happy about what we had to do this week, and we hope that over time everyone in the world will come to enjoy full access to information. But how is that full access most likely to be achieved? We are convinced that the Internet, and its continued development through the efforts of companies like Google, will effectively contribute to openness and prosperity in the world.  Our continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there."</p><p>Google honestly thought that their presence might have a positive effect.  It did not.  They always knew they were compromising their morals/ethics/goals, in the hopes that they wouldn't have to forever.  Unfortunately, it didn't play out that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophyStraight from the horse 's mouth : http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html [ blogspot.com ] " Obviously , the situation in China is far different than it is in those other countries ; while China has made great strides in the past decades , it remains in many ways closed .
We are n't happy about what we had to do this week , and we hope that over time everyone in the world will come to enjoy full access to information .
But how is that full access most likely to be achieved ?
We are convinced that the Internet , and its continued development through the efforts of companies like Google , will effectively contribute to openness and prosperity in the world .
Our continued engagement with China is the best ( perhaps only ) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there .
" Google honestly thought that their presence might have a positive effect .
It did not .
They always knew they were compromising their morals/ethics/goals , in the hopes that they would n't have to forever .
Unfortunately , it did n't play out that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophyStraight from the horse's mouth:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html [blogspot.com]"Obviously, the situation in China is far different than it is in those other countries; while China has made great strides in the past decades, it remains in many ways closed.
We aren't happy about what we had to do this week, and we hope that over time everyone in the world will come to enjoy full access to information.
But how is that full access most likely to be achieved?
We are convinced that the Internet, and its continued development through the efforts of companies like Google, will effectively contribute to openness and prosperity in the world.
Our continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there.
"Google honestly thought that their presence might have a positive effect.
It did not.
They always knew they were compromising their morals/ethics/goals, in the hopes that they wouldn't have to forever.
Unfortunately, it didn't play out that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596910</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>rvw</author>
	<datestamp>1269442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here. </p></div><p>To me it seems like we are winning some of our respect back. I'm glad that a company like Google makes a stand. Do no evil means a lot more now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here .
To me it seems like we are winning some of our respect back .
I 'm glad that a company like Google makes a stand .
Do no evil means a lot more now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the Chinese government may be winning here.
To me it seems like we are winning some of our respect back.
I'm glad that a company like Google makes a stand.
Do no evil means a lot more now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600720</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269457020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them.</p></div><p>Are governments supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them.Are governments supposed to be of the people , by the people , and for the people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... for some reason they can easily interpret criticism of their government as a criticism of them.Are governments supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602278</id>
	<title>Re:A five year old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269462960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this thread...<br>"Get off my lawn!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this thread... " Get off my lawn !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this thread..."Get off my lawn!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597556</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am from Romania, an eastern-european country. Recently, I talked with my 8-year old daughter about the communist regime here (yes, she's 8 years old, not 6... but she didn't even live one single day in communism).<br>I was totally impressed by the discussion. She  didn't care much about the lack of food, chocolate, cartoons and whatnot. She was impressed by the fact that we weren't allowed to make jokes about our leader, and freely discuss anything. She repeatedly asked questions about the "personality cult" of the dictator, and basic freedoms... stuff like "what do you mean they opened your letters to read them? They are not allowed to do that!!!". The lack of freedom was clearly the thing that impressed her most, more than the basic deficiencies of life (that I would've expected to have more impact on her). So yes, I truly believe that that Mr. Brin knew oppression and that  communism did have an impact on him. Not only from his own experience (at 6yr old you are not a clueless child anymore), but also through the tales of his parents.</p><p>As for the post above (MaxW) - that is a very fine example of very poorly understood patriotism. It's not patriotic to say nice things about your homeland, it's more patriotic to say true things. And to help change it for the better, maybe. Patriotism is not helping the leaders of the country, is helping the people. I would argue that mr. Brin already did more for the people in Russia than did Mr. MaxW (if we only consider the jobs Google created there) - I doubt that supporting the authoritarianism of Putin and the Russian oligarchy  would be a patriotic thing for him to do.<br>(that is how I interpret the "Nigeria with snow" statement - it's about the political regime, not the inhabitants or landscape)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am from Romania , an eastern-european country .
Recently , I talked with my 8-year old daughter about the communist regime here ( yes , she 's 8 years old , not 6... but she did n't even live one single day in communism ) .I was totally impressed by the discussion .
She did n't care much about the lack of food , chocolate , cartoons and whatnot .
She was impressed by the fact that we were n't allowed to make jokes about our leader , and freely discuss anything .
She repeatedly asked questions about the " personality cult " of the dictator , and basic freedoms... stuff like " what do you mean they opened your letters to read them ?
They are not allowed to do that ! ! ! " .
The lack of freedom was clearly the thing that impressed her most , more than the basic deficiencies of life ( that I would 've expected to have more impact on her ) .
So yes , I truly believe that that Mr. Brin knew oppression and that communism did have an impact on him .
Not only from his own experience ( at 6yr old you are not a clueless child anymore ) , but also through the tales of his parents.As for the post above ( MaxW ) - that is a very fine example of very poorly understood patriotism .
It 's not patriotic to say nice things about your homeland , it 's more patriotic to say true things .
And to help change it for the better , maybe .
Patriotism is not helping the leaders of the country , is helping the people .
I would argue that mr. Brin already did more for the people in Russia than did Mr. MaxW ( if we only consider the jobs Google created there ) - I doubt that supporting the authoritarianism of Putin and the Russian oligarchy would be a patriotic thing for him to do .
( that is how I interpret the " Nigeria with snow " statement - it 's about the political regime , not the inhabitants or landscape )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am from Romania, an eastern-european country.
Recently, I talked with my 8-year old daughter about the communist regime here (yes, she's 8 years old, not 6... but she didn't even live one single day in communism).I was totally impressed by the discussion.
She  didn't care much about the lack of food, chocolate, cartoons and whatnot.
She was impressed by the fact that we weren't allowed to make jokes about our leader, and freely discuss anything.
She repeatedly asked questions about the "personality cult" of the dictator, and basic freedoms... stuff like "what do you mean they opened your letters to read them?
They are not allowed to do that!!!".
The lack of freedom was clearly the thing that impressed her most, more than the basic deficiencies of life (that I would've expected to have more impact on her).
So yes, I truly believe that that Mr. Brin knew oppression and that  communism did have an impact on him.
Not only from his own experience (at 6yr old you are not a clueless child anymore), but also through the tales of his parents.As for the post above (MaxW) - that is a very fine example of very poorly understood patriotism.
It's not patriotic to say nice things about your homeland, it's more patriotic to say true things.
And to help change it for the better, maybe.
Patriotism is not helping the leaders of the country, is helping the people.
I would argue that mr. Brin already did more for the people in Russia than did Mr. MaxW (if we only consider the jobs Google created there) - I doubt that supporting the authoritarianism of Putin and the Russian oligarchy  would be a patriotic thing for him to do.
(that is how I interpret the "Nigeria with snow" statement - it's about the political regime, not the inhabitants or landscape)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597356</id>
	<title>Re:Moscow State University</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post isn't interesting or insightful. It's simply crap.</p><p>Russia is a hellhole. There is no law at all beyond what you can get away with through bribes and connections. There is state-sponsored xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism... and last I remember the living conditions were about equivalent to the US in the 1940s... at the latest.</p><p>That's the way it's been for centuries, and it's unlikely to change now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is n't interesting or insightful .
It 's simply crap.Russia is a hellhole .
There is no law at all beyond what you can get away with through bribes and connections .
There is state-sponsored xenophobia , racism , and antisemitism... and last I remember the living conditions were about equivalent to the US in the 1940s... at the latest.That 's the way it 's been for centuries , and it 's unlikely to change now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post isn't interesting or insightful.
It's simply crap.Russia is a hellhole.
There is no law at all beyond what you can get away with through bribes and connections.
There is state-sponsored xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism... and last I remember the living conditions were about equivalent to the US in the 1940s... at the latest.That's the way it's been for centuries, and it's unlikely to change now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</id>
	<title>I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing. And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well. They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers). <br> <br> <br>
I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet, this is a line in the sand they have drawn, to perhaps 'do no evil' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing .
And that Eric Schmidt is against it , and probably the rest of the board is as well .
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible , even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price ( again : see John Chambers ) .
I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet , this is a line in the sand they have drawn , to perhaps 'do no evil ' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling this whole showdown is a Larry and Sergey thing.
And that Eric Schmidt is against it, and probably the rest of the board is as well.
They would rather be pusillanimous like John Chambers and just make as much money off China as possible, even if it means aid and abet totalitarianism and not standing for anything except quarterly share price (again: see John Chambers).
I applaud refusing to censor information on the internet, this is a line in the sand they have drawn, to perhaps 'do no evil' and in Slashdot spirit we should all be behind it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</id>
	<title>What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy? I am certain they have made money in China, they would not have gone there for altruistic purposes of giving China good search results and web based email if there was not profit in it.  Sure they have the philosophy "Don't Be Evil" but they got in bed with China to do business there. Only after the Aurora Exploit did they finally say enough is enough.  Taking an anti-censorship stance only AFTER the Aurora attacks makes it seem retaliatory to me.  They got a bruised eye from the neighborhood bully and then after playing along fine for quite some time decided they wanted to pick up their ball and go home.  I would have been more impressed if Google uncensored their search results from the beginning instead of reacting to overt actions from China to their bottom line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy ?
I am certain they have made money in China , they would not have gone there for altruistic purposes of giving China good search results and web based email if there was not profit in it .
Sure they have the philosophy " Do n't Be Evil " but they got in bed with China to do business there .
Only after the Aurora Exploit did they finally say enough is enough .
Taking an anti-censorship stance only AFTER the Aurora attacks makes it seem retaliatory to me .
They got a bruised eye from the neighborhood bully and then after playing along fine for quite some time decided they wanted to pick up their ball and go home .
I would have been more impressed if Google uncensored their search results from the beginning instead of reacting to overt actions from China to their bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did Google initially agree to censor search results in the first place if this was their philosophy?
I am certain they have made money in China, they would not have gone there for altruistic purposes of giving China good search results and web based email if there was not profit in it.
Sure they have the philosophy "Don't Be Evil" but they got in bed with China to do business there.
Only after the Aurora Exploit did they finally say enough is enough.
Taking an anti-censorship stance only AFTER the Aurora attacks makes it seem retaliatory to me.
They got a bruised eye from the neighborhood bully and then after playing along fine for quite some time decided they wanted to pick up their ball and go home.
I would have been more impressed if Google uncensored their search results from the beginning instead of reacting to overt actions from China to their bottom line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597908</id>
	<title>did you see the latest "alice in wonderland"?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mid1800s high society england is the setting:</p><p>at the end of the movie, alice talks about extending her dad's business empire away from sumatra and borneo, and into china, via hong kong. it's all presented as wonderful creative striking and reaffirming thinking</p><p>and then she gets on a sailing frigate, with a big smile on her face... to go humiliate and exploit china, in the era of the opium wars</p><p>wtf?!</p><p>and this is a 2010s movie, not a 1930s one!</p><p>britain basically committed pharmacological warfare on china by force importing and force addicting chinese to heroin. remember, alice in wonderland is pretty much a drug trip (although more lsd than heroin really)</p><p>i just wonder how this CURRENT (#1 for weeks in the west) movie is seen in china: that the west is so blissfully unaware of how humiliating this experience was that they present it, today, in their most visible top notch cinema, as a glorious, shameless adventure</p><p>if i were chinese, my blood would boil, as if this was yesterday!</p><p>you don't have to wallow in history, but you have to present it responsibly, if you do touch upon it. and celebrating british imperialism, as a sort of self-empowerment and self-affirming assertiveness, is NOT what you want to do, especially when it glosses over real life horrible abuses, against a current world power with a historical chip on its shoulder over exactly the same historical episode</p><p>stupid</p><p>it just shows the chinese that the west NEEDS a kick in the groin over this sort of historical blindness</p><p>show some humility, tact, and historical awareness, stupid hollywood</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mid1800s high society england is the setting : at the end of the movie , alice talks about extending her dad 's business empire away from sumatra and borneo , and into china , via hong kong .
it 's all presented as wonderful creative striking and reaffirming thinkingand then she gets on a sailing frigate , with a big smile on her face... to go humiliate and exploit china , in the era of the opium warswtf ?
! and this is a 2010s movie , not a 1930s one ! britain basically committed pharmacological warfare on china by force importing and force addicting chinese to heroin .
remember , alice in wonderland is pretty much a drug trip ( although more lsd than heroin really ) i just wonder how this CURRENT ( # 1 for weeks in the west ) movie is seen in china : that the west is so blissfully unaware of how humiliating this experience was that they present it , today , in their most visible top notch cinema , as a glorious , shameless adventureif i were chinese , my blood would boil , as if this was yesterday ! you do n't have to wallow in history , but you have to present it responsibly , if you do touch upon it .
and celebrating british imperialism , as a sort of self-empowerment and self-affirming assertiveness , is NOT what you want to do , especially when it glosses over real life horrible abuses , against a current world power with a historical chip on its shoulder over exactly the same historical episodestupidit just shows the chinese that the west NEEDS a kick in the groin over this sort of historical blindnessshow some humility , tact , and historical awareness , stupid hollywood</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mid1800s high society england is the setting:at the end of the movie, alice talks about extending her dad's business empire away from sumatra and borneo, and into china, via hong kong.
it's all presented as wonderful creative striking and reaffirming thinkingand then she gets on a sailing frigate, with a big smile on her face... to go humiliate and exploit china, in the era of the opium warswtf?
!and this is a 2010s movie, not a 1930s one!britain basically committed pharmacological warfare on china by force importing and force addicting chinese to heroin.
remember, alice in wonderland is pretty much a drug trip (although more lsd than heroin really)i just wonder how this CURRENT (#1 for weeks in the west) movie is seen in china: that the west is so blissfully unaware of how humiliating this experience was that they present it, today, in their most visible top notch cinema, as a glorious, shameless adventureif i were chinese, my blood would boil, as if this was yesterday!you don't have to wallow in history, but you have to present it responsibly, if you do touch upon it.
and celebrating british imperialism, as a sort of self-empowerment and self-affirming assertiveness, is NOT what you want to do, especially when it glosses over real life horrible abuses, against a current world power with a historical chip on its shoulder over exactly the same historical episodestupidit just shows the chinese that the west NEEDS a kick in the groin over this sort of historical blindnessshow some humility, tact, and historical awareness, stupid hollywood</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31617912</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "complete crap" would be to think that " there are many corporations out there that try to be good corporate citizens". What a pile of shit. Feel free to list here all the corporations that are "moral". and for each of them, I'll show you three that aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" complete crap " would be to think that " there are many corporations out there that try to be good corporate citizens " .
What a pile of shit .
Feel free to list here all the corporations that are " moral " .
and for each of them , I 'll show you three that are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "complete crap" would be to think that " there are many corporations out there that try to be good corporate citizens".
What a pile of shit.
Feel free to list here all the corporations that are "moral".
and for each of them, I'll show you three that aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601838</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>antv</author>
	<datestamp>1269461220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But now that there's an obvious business reason *not* to operate in China (the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government), Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google, the organization, in a different direction.</p></div><p>This is one argument I've never understood - it's not like Chinese government could only hack into companies with physical presence in China. If it's about hacking - pulling out of China won't help Google in any way. If it's about censorship - yeah, really, it wasn't a problem for more than five years, but now it suddenly is ?!? If it's about finding a nice excuse to leave Chinese market after getting beaten by Baidu - well, that at least is plausible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But now that there 's an obvious business reason * not * to operate in China ( the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government ) , Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google , the organization , in a different direction.This is one argument I 've never understood - it 's not like Chinese government could only hack into companies with physical presence in China .
If it 's about hacking - pulling out of China wo n't help Google in any way .
If it 's about censorship - yeah , really , it was n't a problem for more than five years , but now it suddenly is ? ! ?
If it 's about finding a nice excuse to leave Chinese market after getting beaten by Baidu - well , that at least is plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now that there's an obvious business reason *not* to operate in China (the threat of being hacked by individuals whose actions may or may not have been sanctioned by the government), Larry and Sergei find themselves in the position to steer Google, the organization, in a different direction.This is one argument I've never understood - it's not like Chinese government could only hack into companies with physical presence in China.
If it's about hacking - pulling out of China won't help Google in any way.
If it's about censorship - yeah, really, it wasn't a problem for more than five years, but now it suddenly is ?!?
If it's about finding a nice excuse to leave Chinese market after getting beaten by Baidu - well, that at least is plausible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601960</id>
	<title>I was living 9 years in communist poland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269461700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Till we moved to West Germany. And I can say: I have no fucking memory of being oppressed or something. I have good childhood memories despite being a communist kid.</p><p>So go and fuck you Mr. Brin - just another Google propaganda lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Till we moved to West Germany .
And I can say : I have no fucking memory of being oppressed or something .
I have good childhood memories despite being a communist kid.So go and fuck you Mr. Brin - just another Google propaganda lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Till we moved to West Germany.
And I can say: I have no fucking memory of being oppressed or something.
I have good childhood memories despite being a communist kid.So go and fuck you Mr. Brin - just another Google propaganda lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598076</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Mordok-DestroyerOfWo</author>
	<datestamp>1269447420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure plenty of Italians were fine with Mussolini keeping the trains on time.  That doesn't legitimize the heavy handed tactics of the authoritarian regime.  Dissenters are quickly "reeducated" and any difference in opinion is silenced.  I'm not saying that the Western world is perfect and I do realize that no country is truly 100\% "free", however I have a serious problem with any company kowtowing to a brutal government and even if they did it for their own self-serving reasons I still have to applaud Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure plenty of Italians were fine with Mussolini keeping the trains on time .
That does n't legitimize the heavy handed tactics of the authoritarian regime .
Dissenters are quickly " reeducated " and any difference in opinion is silenced .
I 'm not saying that the Western world is perfect and I do realize that no country is truly 100 \ % " free " , however I have a serious problem with any company kowtowing to a brutal government and even if they did it for their own self-serving reasons I still have to applaud Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure plenty of Italians were fine with Mussolini keeping the trains on time.
That doesn't legitimize the heavy handed tactics of the authoritarian regime.
Dissenters are quickly "reeducated" and any difference in opinion is silenced.
I'm not saying that the Western world is perfect and I do realize that no country is truly 100\% "free", however I have a serious problem with any company kowtowing to a brutal government and even if they did it for their own self-serving reasons I still have to applaud Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598158</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just amazed (well not really, considering the government) that the common chinese aggressively try to fight somebody who's trying to give them something any person would want, information.</p><p>Car analogy: They're like "Oh god damn it! Those motherfucking italians are trying to park a free Ferrari in our garage again! Shoo shoo!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just amazed ( well not really , considering the government ) that the common chinese aggressively try to fight somebody who 's trying to give them something any person would want , information.Car analogy : They 're like " Oh god damn it !
Those motherfucking italians are trying to park a free Ferrari in our garage again !
Shoo shoo !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just amazed (well not really, considering the government) that the common chinese aggressively try to fight somebody who's trying to give them something any person would want, information.Car analogy: They're like "Oh god damn it!
Those motherfucking italians are trying to park a free Ferrari in our garage again!
Shoo shoo!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600752</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Reservoir Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1269457140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>China is not unique there. Just try to criticize Israel w/o being accused of being of antisemitism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China is not unique there .
Just try to criticize Israel w/o being accused of being of antisemitism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is not unique there.
Just try to criticize Israel w/o being accused of being of antisemitism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599442</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269452280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, Google wasn't really making money in China. They failed to take much search market share from the incumbents (particularly Baidu) and their China operations were costly.</p><p>This has led many, myself included, to think that the whole free speech and hacking angle that Google is now adopting is just a smokescreen. It lets them save face and leave a market they've failed in while getting kudos from the internet community for standing up to censorship.</p><p>The primary evidence for this idea is that China has the same censorship and government hacking policies today as it did years ago when Google entered the China market, so why leave now? Because they've failed to meet market share and profit targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , Google was n't really making money in China .
They failed to take much search market share from the incumbents ( particularly Baidu ) and their China operations were costly.This has led many , myself included , to think that the whole free speech and hacking angle that Google is now adopting is just a smokescreen .
It lets them save face and leave a market they 've failed in while getting kudos from the internet community for standing up to censorship.The primary evidence for this idea is that China has the same censorship and government hacking policies today as it did years ago when Google entered the China market , so why leave now ?
Because they 've failed to meet market share and profit targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, Google wasn't really making money in China.
They failed to take much search market share from the incumbents (particularly Baidu) and their China operations were costly.This has led many, myself included, to think that the whole free speech and hacking angle that Google is now adopting is just a smokescreen.
It lets them save face and leave a market they've failed in while getting kudos from the internet community for standing up to censorship.The primary evidence for this idea is that China has the same censorship and government hacking policies today as it did years ago when Google entered the China market, so why leave now?
Because they've failed to meet market share and profit targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597080</id>
	<title>Re:Anger?</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269443220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.</i></p><p>Huh?  Why would the US government have any interest, whatsoever, in getting involved in this little spat?  I can see absolutely no reason why the US government would do that, and at least one good reason not to: they'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just can't seem to stay out of other people's business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.Huh ?
Why would the US government have any interest , whatsoever , in getting involved in this little spat ?
I can see absolutely no reason why the US government would do that , and at least one good reason not to : they 'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just ca n't seem to stay out of other people 's business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.Huh?
Why would the US government have any interest, whatsoever, in getting involved in this little spat?
I can see absolutely no reason why the US government would do that, and at least one good reason not to: they'd just end up looking like nosy assholes who just can't seem to stay out of other people's business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>KingJoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1269444420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like being friends with a bully and joining the gang.  You go around and help the bully. And then one day, the bully smacks you down in front of others reminding you he's the leader.  Only then do you call the bully out for his aggressive nature.  It's complete fucking BS and the fact that so many are buying the story is pathetic.</p><p>However, having said that, I'll add that I am one of the few that think China is in the right. China still have a lot of poor people but they're developing rapidly. The last thing it needs right now is a bunch of tea-bagger like idiots protesting the government.  The people don't need others to cause unrest or impede growth. Contrary to most Americans, most Chinese value stability and economic progress to certain liberties. Obviously, with as big a population as China has, even a small percentage of people that prioritize liberty would still number in the tens of millions.  But life isn't fair and it sucks to be them. Hopefully they can find some form of happiness in their lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like being friends with a bully and joining the gang .
You go around and help the bully .
And then one day , the bully smacks you down in front of others reminding you he 's the leader .
Only then do you call the bully out for his aggressive nature .
It 's complete fucking BS and the fact that so many are buying the story is pathetic.However , having said that , I 'll add that I am one of the few that think China is in the right .
China still have a lot of poor people but they 're developing rapidly .
The last thing it needs right now is a bunch of tea-bagger like idiots protesting the government .
The people do n't need others to cause unrest or impede growth .
Contrary to most Americans , most Chinese value stability and economic progress to certain liberties .
Obviously , with as big a population as China has , even a small percentage of people that prioritize liberty would still number in the tens of millions .
But life is n't fair and it sucks to be them .
Hopefully they can find some form of happiness in their lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like being friends with a bully and joining the gang.
You go around and help the bully.
And then one day, the bully smacks you down in front of others reminding you he's the leader.
Only then do you call the bully out for his aggressive nature.
It's complete fucking BS and the fact that so many are buying the story is pathetic.However, having said that, I'll add that I am one of the few that think China is in the right.
China still have a lot of poor people but they're developing rapidly.
The last thing it needs right now is a bunch of tea-bagger like idiots protesting the government.
The people don't need others to cause unrest or impede growth.
Contrary to most Americans, most Chinese value stability and economic progress to certain liberties.
Obviously, with as big a population as China has, even a small percentage of people that prioritize liberty would still number in the tens of millions.
But life isn't fair and it sucks to be them.
Hopefully they can find some form of happiness in their lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598988</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit - or not</title>
	<author>DCFusor</author>
	<datestamp>1269450600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dunno about losing market share, they had about 33\% of China (with Bidu having most of the rest).  But even that, which is a huge number of eyeballs, only accounted for a couple of percent of their total gross income.  Whether they actually made net profit on China is hard to determine without doing some serious forensic accounting, but it couldn't have been much, in the rounding error range.
<p>
The potential is there to be sure -- but it's not now.  Evidently they just weren't pulling in the advertising revenue for China well at all.
</p><p>
So, in reality, this doesn't cost them much, and it certainly makes a point worldwide.
Many Chinese friends of mine really like and use Google as for some things (scientific research) they are pretty hard to beat.  But I guess those types don't click through on ads much.  However, that group can be effectively noisy, and done right this really makes the Chinese repression stand out not only to the world, but to their own people.
</p><p>
So, for now, it's good.  If they can without losing face, they may capitulate, but that won't be while the issue is front and center.
</p><p>
Disclaimer -- I trade stocks for a living and sometimes have positions in Google, Bidu, and a bunch of other issues -- and I look these numbers up all the time in order to make my own business decisions.  No positions in search just now however, I'm waiting for a better defined trend in those rather than a headline caused blip -- those can really bite one on the butt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno about losing market share , they had about 33 \ % of China ( with Bidu having most of the rest ) .
But even that , which is a huge number of eyeballs , only accounted for a couple of percent of their total gross income .
Whether they actually made net profit on China is hard to determine without doing some serious forensic accounting , but it could n't have been much , in the rounding error range .
The potential is there to be sure -- but it 's not now .
Evidently they just were n't pulling in the advertising revenue for China well at all .
So , in reality , this does n't cost them much , and it certainly makes a point worldwide .
Many Chinese friends of mine really like and use Google as for some things ( scientific research ) they are pretty hard to beat .
But I guess those types do n't click through on ads much .
However , that group can be effectively noisy , and done right this really makes the Chinese repression stand out not only to the world , but to their own people .
So , for now , it 's good .
If they can without losing face , they may capitulate , but that wo n't be while the issue is front and center .
Disclaimer -- I trade stocks for a living and sometimes have positions in Google , Bidu , and a bunch of other issues -- and I look these numbers up all the time in order to make my own business decisions .
No positions in search just now however , I 'm waiting for a better defined trend in those rather than a headline caused blip -- those can really bite one on the butt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno about losing market share, they had about 33\% of China (with Bidu having most of the rest).
But even that, which is a huge number of eyeballs, only accounted for a couple of percent of their total gross income.
Whether they actually made net profit on China is hard to determine without doing some serious forensic accounting, but it couldn't have been much, in the rounding error range.
The potential is there to be sure -- but it's not now.
Evidently they just weren't pulling in the advertising revenue for China well at all.
So, in reality, this doesn't cost them much, and it certainly makes a point worldwide.
Many Chinese friends of mine really like and use Google as for some things (scientific research) they are pretty hard to beat.
But I guess those types don't click through on ads much.
However, that group can be effectively noisy, and done right this really makes the Chinese repression stand out not only to the world, but to their own people.
So, for now, it's good.
If they can without losing face, they may capitulate, but that won't be while the issue is front and center.
Disclaimer -- I trade stocks for a living and sometimes have positions in Google, Bidu, and a bunch of other issues -- and I look these numbers up all the time in order to make my own business decisions.
No positions in search just now however, I'm waiting for a better defined trend in those rather than a headline caused blip -- those can really bite one on the butt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597400</id>
	<title>Re:I get the feeling....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too agree with Google's decision to back out of mainland China until the regime decides to grant greater freedoms on information for their people.</p><p>You have to take a stand for something. I think that this is a honorable position for Google to take and it improves my opinion of them as a company and of the executives who are going to catch the flack from investors over their decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too agree with Google 's decision to back out of mainland China until the regime decides to grant greater freedoms on information for their people.You have to take a stand for something .
I think that this is a honorable position for Google to take and it improves my opinion of them as a company and of the executives who are going to catch the flack from investors over their decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too agree with Google's decision to back out of mainland China until the regime decides to grant greater freedoms on information for their people.You have to take a stand for something.
I think that this is a honorable position for Google to take and it improves my opinion of them as a company and of the executives who are going to catch the flack from investors over their decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31604058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31616390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31617912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1227201_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31603784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31602278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31604058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31605832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31616390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31612584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31596762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1227201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31597362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31617912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31600026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31601346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31598988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1227201.31599410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
