<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_04_1814201</id>
	<title>FTC Shuts Down Calif. ISP For Botnets, Child Porn</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244142000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The Federal Trade Commission has <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/06/ftc\_sues\_shuts\_down\_n\_calif\_we.html">convinced a federal judge to pull the plug on a 3FN.net</a>, a.k.a. 'Pricewert LLC,' a Northern California based hosting provider. The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets, among other illegal activities, the Washington Post's Security Fix Blog writes. From the story: 'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.' The story quotes a former Justice Dept. expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Federal Trade Commission has convinced a federal judge to pull the plug on a 3FN.net , a.k.a .
'Pricewert LLC, ' a Northern California based hosting provider .
The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets , among other illegal activities , the Washington Post 's Security Fix Blog writes .
From the story : 'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest .
' The story quotes a former Justice Dept .
expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN 's activities .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Federal Trade Commission has convinced a federal judge to pull the plug on a 3FN.net, a.k.a.
'Pricewert LLC,' a Northern California based hosting provider.
The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets, among other illegal activities, the Washington Post's Security Fix Blog writes.
From the story: 'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.
' The story quotes a former Justice Dept.
expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213455</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot doesn't work in any browser.</p><p>Also, they have a policy of launching new, untested, broken features mid week during peak usage.</p><p>In addition, they have a policy of "belittle and close" when you submit a bug to sourceforge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot does n't work in any browser.Also , they have a policy of launching new , untested , broken features mid week during peak usage.In addition , they have a policy of " belittle and close " when you submit a bug to sourceforge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot doesn't work in any browser.Also, they have a policy of launching new, untested, broken features mid week during peak usage.In addition, they have a policy of "belittle and close" when you submit a bug to sourceforge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213627</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks justfine in IE 6!  Just have to enable Active X and set your security settings to "low".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks justfine in IE 6 !
Just have to enable Active X and set your security settings to " low " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks justfine in IE 6!
Just have to enable Active X and set your security settings to "low".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1244147760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read between the lines.<br> <br>Slashdot doesn't render properly on ANY browser.<br> <br>The reason for this is because slashdot doesn't have a proper webdev writing their site.  The may have a webdev, but obviously the person they have is not capable of meeting their needs.<br> <br>Since the corporate overlords are cutting back on expenses, there is no room in the budget to hire a proper webdev.  So the slashdot team has decided to purposely bork the site, keeping it just-good-enough-for-content-to-be-available, in the hope that some skilled webdev will offer their services for free to fix the site.<br> <br>Or, possibly, the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site, and less like a news aggregator with comments.  I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past.<br> <br>Finally, the third possibility -- it's summer, which is kind of like the Septembers of yore on usenet.  Maybe they're hoping to preserve the community by driving off the shambling hordes of idiots who belong on Fark or 4chan instead of here, while the slashdot core sticks around, knowing that things will simmer down in October.  But that's probably wishful thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read between the lines .
Slashdot does n't render properly on ANY browser .
The reason for this is because slashdot does n't have a proper webdev writing their site .
The may have a webdev , but obviously the person they have is not capable of meeting their needs .
Since the corporate overlords are cutting back on expenses , there is no room in the budget to hire a proper webdev .
So the slashdot team has decided to purposely bork the site , keeping it just-good-enough-for-content-to-be-available , in the hope that some skilled webdev will offer their services for free to fix the site .
Or , possibly , the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord 's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site , and less like a news aggregator with comments .
I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past .
Finally , the third possibility -- it 's summer , which is kind of like the Septembers of yore on usenet .
Maybe they 're hoping to preserve the community by driving off the shambling hordes of idiots who belong on Fark or 4chan instead of here , while the slashdot core sticks around , knowing that things will simmer down in October .
But that 's probably wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read between the lines.
Slashdot doesn't render properly on ANY browser.
The reason for this is because slashdot doesn't have a proper webdev writing their site.
The may have a webdev, but obviously the person they have is not capable of meeting their needs.
Since the corporate overlords are cutting back on expenses, there is no room in the budget to hire a proper webdev.
So the slashdot team has decided to purposely bork the site, keeping it just-good-enough-for-content-to-be-available, in the hope that some skilled webdev will offer their services for free to fix the site.
Or, possibly, the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site, and less like a news aggregator with comments.
I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past.
Finally, the third possibility -- it's summer, which is kind of like the Septembers of yore on usenet.
Maybe they're hoping to preserve the community by driving off the shambling hordes of idiots who belong on Fark or 4chan instead of here, while the slashdot core sticks around, knowing that things will simmer down in October.
But that's probably wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214071</id>
	<title>Re:Turn off Beta!</title>
	<author>Taevin</author>
	<datestamp>1244148600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as we're having a Slashdot gripe-fest, anyone know why I seem to have "lost" the majority of my comments? I was trying to find a comment I made a long time ago and it seems like everything before January 8, 2009 is just gone. WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as we 're having a Slashdot gripe-fest , anyone know why I seem to have " lost " the majority of my comments ?
I was trying to find a comment I made a long time ago and it seems like everything before January 8 , 2009 is just gone .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as we're having a Slashdot gripe-fest, anyone know why I seem to have "lost" the majority of my comments?
I was trying to find a comment I made a long time ago and it seems like everything before January 8, 2009 is just gone.
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28223909</id>
	<title>Re:legitimate content</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244222280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You don't shut down a phone company (e.g. AT&amp;T or Sprint) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone.</p></div></blockquote><p>They didn't shut down the hosting company because third parties were using it to commit crimes, either. The temporary restraing order cutting off the hosting company was based on information that the hosting company <i>itself</i> was using its systems to actively commit crimes with some of its customers.</p><blockquote><div><p>When one of these businesses goes under, or the soldier in Korea can't get the streaming video of his childs' birthday party, who do they call? The FTC?</p></div></blockquote><p>If they think that the TRO is improper and that they are harmed as a result, they probably ought to contact the Court that issued the order.</p><blockquote><div><p>The government is proud of itself for not doing its job. Actually prosecuting the criminals. If there haven't been any crimes, they had no right.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not all unlawful activity that the government is responsible for taking action against is criminal, nor is the government limited to criminal processes in taking action against unlawful activity even where it is criminal. Of course, the activity alleged here <i>is</i>, at least in part, criminal activity, and the FTCs request for the TRO include an explicit request to issue the order in time to coordinate with action in the criminal investigation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't shut down a phone company ( e.g .
AT&amp;T or Sprint ) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone.They did n't shut down the hosting company because third parties were using it to commit crimes , either .
The temporary restraing order cutting off the hosting company was based on information that the hosting company itself was using its systems to actively commit crimes with some of its customers.When one of these businesses goes under , or the soldier in Korea ca n't get the streaming video of his childs ' birthday party , who do they call ?
The FTC ? If they think that the TRO is improper and that they are harmed as a result , they probably ought to contact the Court that issued the order.The government is proud of itself for not doing its job .
Actually prosecuting the criminals .
If there have n't been any crimes , they had no right.Not all unlawful activity that the government is responsible for taking action against is criminal , nor is the government limited to criminal processes in taking action against unlawful activity even where it is criminal .
Of course , the activity alleged here is , at least in part , criminal activity , and the FTCs request for the TRO include an explicit request to issue the order in time to coordinate with action in the criminal investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't shut down a phone company (e.g.
AT&amp;T or Sprint) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone.They didn't shut down the hosting company because third parties were using it to commit crimes, either.
The temporary restraing order cutting off the hosting company was based on information that the hosting company itself was using its systems to actively commit crimes with some of its customers.When one of these businesses goes under, or the soldier in Korea can't get the streaming video of his childs' birthday party, who do they call?
The FTC?If they think that the TRO is improper and that they are harmed as a result, they probably ought to contact the Court that issued the order.The government is proud of itself for not doing its job.
Actually prosecuting the criminals.
If there haven't been any crimes, they had no right.Not all unlawful activity that the government is responsible for taking action against is criminal, nor is the government limited to criminal processes in taking action against unlawful activity even where it is criminal.
Of course, the activity alleged here is, at least in part, criminal activity, and the FTCs request for the TRO include an explicit request to issue the order in time to coordinate with action in the criminal investigation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215275</id>
	<title>Re:Incest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244111400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um, how did they know that?</p></div><p>In a word: twins.</p><p>There's also the matter of recognizing previously investigated imagery for which participants (offenders and victims) have been identified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , how did they know that ? In a word : twins.There 's also the matter of recognizing previously investigated imagery for which participants ( offenders and victims ) have been identified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, how did they know that?In a word: twins.There's also the matter of recognizing previously investigated imagery for which participants (offenders and victims) have been identified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214579</id>
	<title>/. not broken - just block fsdn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blocked all traffic from fsdn.com and slashdot works perfectly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blocked all traffic from fsdn.com and slashdot works perfectly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blocked all traffic from fsdn.com and slashdot works perfectly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213765</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244147460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i recently got ahold of an old laptop with low specs and i have been trying various browsers, firefox-2.0.0.20, dillo-2.0, lynx, links, and i am afraid that 99.9\% of the internet does not care for anything other than the top two or three browsers = IE, mozilla's firefox &amp; seamonkey and opera, yeah it sucks to see decent but older hardware obsoleted like that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>i recently got ahold of an old laptop with low specs and i have been trying various browsers , firefox-2.0.0.20 , dillo-2.0 , lynx , links , and i am afraid that 99.9 \ % of the internet does not care for anything other than the top two or three browsers = IE , mozilla 's firefox &amp; seamonkey and opera , yeah it sucks to see decent but older hardware obsoleted like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i recently got ahold of an old laptop with low specs and i have been trying various browsers, firefox-2.0.0.20, dillo-2.0, lynx, links, and i am afraid that 99.9\% of the internet does not care for anything other than the top two or three browsers = IE, mozilla's firefox &amp; seamonkey and opera, yeah it sucks to see decent but older hardware obsoleted like that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213313</id>
	<title>Paging all "first posters"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...with their links which are suddenly broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...with their links which are suddenly broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with their links which are suddenly broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219397</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1244235420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p>  &gt; <i>knowing that things will simmer down in October </i> </p><p> Ah.   October 1, 1993 never comes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal\_September </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; knowing that things will simmer down in October Ah .
October 1 , 1993 never comes : ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal \ _September</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

  &gt; knowing that things will simmer down in October   Ah.
October 1, 1993 never comes :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal\_September </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219551</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What twats modded this interesting? More like plain stupid, given that it's been repeatly pointed out that 3FN is *not* an ISP, it's a hosting company, and its own staff are up to their necks in their clients' criminality (botnets etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What twats modded this interesting ?
More like plain stupid , given that it 's been repeatly pointed out that 3FN is * not * an ISP , it 's a hosting company , and its own staff are up to their necks in their clients ' criminality ( botnets etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What twats modded this interesting?
More like plain stupid, given that it's been repeatly pointed out that 3FN is *not* an ISP, it's a hosting company, and its own staff are up to their necks in their clients' criminality (botnets etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213837</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1244147760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands! Laying on the beach, raking in cash! Will you show us no mercy?!</p></div><p>Jokes on them, I just delete the spam, and they'll probably get a melanoma from all that sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands !
Laying on the beach , raking in cash !
Will you show us no mercy ?
! Jokes on them , I just delete the spam , and they 'll probably get a melanoma from all that sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands!
Laying on the beach, raking in cash!
Will you show us no mercy?
!Jokes on them, I just delete the spam, and they'll probably get a melanoma from all that sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215103</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244110680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wait, trying to drive off farkers and 4channers with a terrible layout and broken site, and keep the old regulars?</p><p>Does not compute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait , trying to drive off farkers and 4channers with a terrible layout and broken site , and keep the old regulars ? Does not compute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait, trying to drive off farkers and 4channers with a terrible layout and broken site, and keep the old regulars?Does not compute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</id>
	<title>"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>Evets</author>
	<datestamp>1244146920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography, I immediately think it's a smear campaign.</p><p>I don't know anything about 3FN.net, but generally...</p><p>ISPs don't host porn, they host websites.  Some people put up websites that have porn or other content that someone might object to.  Some websites have illegal content.</p><p>Sometimes people get frustrated because it's difficult to stop whatever activity it is they are trying to stop.  Because an ISP provides its customers with anonymity, or because it doesn't log certain things, or because they are not cooperative with whatever branch of the government wants their cooperation does not make them bad.  There are plenty of legitimate, good, positive-for-society reasons that anonymity or partial anonymity is necessary.  There are ways of enforcing the law and bettering society that don't strip rights away from free people doing ordinary things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography , I immediately think it 's a smear campaign.I do n't know anything about 3FN.net , but generally...ISPs do n't host porn , they host websites .
Some people put up websites that have porn or other content that someone might object to .
Some websites have illegal content.Sometimes people get frustrated because it 's difficult to stop whatever activity it is they are trying to stop .
Because an ISP provides its customers with anonymity , or because it does n't log certain things , or because they are not cooperative with whatever branch of the government wants their cooperation does not make them bad .
There are plenty of legitimate , good , positive-for-society reasons that anonymity or partial anonymity is necessary .
There are ways of enforcing the law and bettering society that do n't strip rights away from free people doing ordinary things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography, I immediately think it's a smear campaign.I don't know anything about 3FN.net, but generally...ISPs don't host porn, they host websites.
Some people put up websites that have porn or other content that someone might object to.
Some websites have illegal content.Sometimes people get frustrated because it's difficult to stop whatever activity it is they are trying to stop.
Because an ISP provides its customers with anonymity, or because it doesn't log certain things, or because they are not cooperative with whatever branch of the government wants their cooperation does not make them bad.
There are plenty of legitimate, good, positive-for-society reasons that anonymity or partial anonymity is necessary.
There are ways of enforcing the law and bettering society that don't strip rights away from free people doing ordinary things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214535</id>
	<title>no surprise here</title>
	<author>Indy1</author>
	<datestamp>1244107740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been trying to hammer on the mail server for some time.  I firewalled all of their ip blocks as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been trying to hammer on the mail server for some time .
I firewalled all of their ip blocks as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been trying to hammer on the mail server for some time.
I firewalled all of their ip blocks as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214833</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244109240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography, I immediately think it's a smear campaign.</i> <p>
Why?</p><p>
Three stories from Google News, all dated June 4. There is nothing special about any of them, even the last:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/692195.html" title="buffalonews.com">Buffalo man gets 11 years for distributing child porn</a> [buffalonews.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2009/0604/news/005.html" title="gulfbreezenews.com">Local man convicted for having child porn</a> [gulfbreezenews.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sex-Offender-Caught-with-Porn-During-Registry-Police.html" title="nbcbayarea.com">Sex Offender Caught with Porn During Registry, Police</a> [nbcbayarea.com] </p><p>
<i>Brett Bartlett, 30, had gone to the Livermore police station for his annual sex offender registration.<br>
He was convicted in 2005 in Santa Clara County for having oral sex with a person under 16 years old.  That conviction requires him to register as a sex offender.<br>

While Bartlett was in the police station, detectives asked if they could do a search of his vehicle.<br>
Inside the vehicle, detectives found a computer that they say had numerous images of child pornography.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography , I immediately think it 's a smear campaign .
Why ? Three stories from Google News , all dated June 4 .
There is nothing special about any of them , even the last : Buffalo man gets 11 years for distributing child porn [ buffalonews.com ] Local man convicted for having child porn [ gulfbreezenews.com ] Sex Offender Caught with Porn During Registry , Police [ nbcbayarea.com ] Brett Bartlett , 30 , had gone to the Livermore police station for his annual sex offender registration .
He was convicted in 2005 in Santa Clara County for having oral sex with a person under 16 years old .
That conviction requires him to register as a sex offender .
While Bartlett was in the police station , detectives asked if they could do a search of his vehicle .
Inside the vehicle , detectives found a computer that they say had numerous images of child pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I see something referencing child pornography, I immediately think it's a smear campaign.
Why?
Three stories from Google News, all dated June 4.
There is nothing special about any of them, even the last:
Buffalo man gets 11 years for distributing child porn [buffalonews.com]  Local man convicted for having child porn [gulfbreezenews.com]  Sex Offender Caught with Porn During Registry, Police [nbcbayarea.com] 
Brett Bartlett, 30, had gone to the Livermore police station for his annual sex offender registration.
He was convicted in 2005 in Santa Clara County for having oral sex with a person under 16 years old.
That conviction requires him to register as a sex offender.
While Bartlett was in the police station, detectives asked if they could do a search of his vehicle.
Inside the vehicle, detectives found a computer that they say had numerous images of child pornography.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215537</id>
	<title>Whoa, Hold the phone</title>
	<author>popeye44</author>
	<datestamp>1244112780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they say bestiality was illegal?</p><p>Crap.. I was having so much fun sending Elmer the octopus to my unsuspecting friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they say bestiality was illegal ? Crap.. I was having so much fun sending Elmer the octopus to my unsuspecting friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they say bestiality was illegal?Crap.. I was having so much fun sending Elmer the octopus to my unsuspecting friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213569</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a list</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1244146620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what makes it different than any other ISP?</p></div><p>This one wasn't paying its dues to the local politicians?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what makes it different than any other ISP ? This one was n't paying its dues to the local politicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what makes it different than any other ISP?This one wasn't paying its dues to the local politicians?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1244147340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's got to be a joke, there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP's not liable for such things. So unless some magic law passed that none of us knew about which would have been publicized worldwide, there's really not a whole lot of sense from the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got to be a joke , there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP 's not liable for such things .
So unless some magic law passed that none of us knew about which would have been publicized worldwide , there 's really not a whole lot of sense from the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got to be a joke, there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP's not liable for such things.
So unless some magic law passed that none of us knew about which would have been publicized worldwide, there's really not a whole lot of sense from the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215527</id>
	<title>Actually, it's because part of the content was ...</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1244112780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are "targeting" all browsers. Everything sucks.</i></p><p>Naw.  Part of the content was hosted on 3FN and the FTC just took it down.</p><p>(It's a joke.  Mod it "funny".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are " targeting " all browsers .
Everything sucks.Naw .
Part of the content was hosted on 3FN and the FTC just took it down .
( It 's a joke .
Mod it " funny " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are "targeting" all browsers.
Everything sucks.Naw.
Part of the content was hosted on 3FN and the FTC just took it down.
(It's a joke.
Mod it "funny".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214017</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1244148420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally, I think if it was truly child porn, they'd do more than shut down the website.  They'd find some names and throw them in jail.
The fact that there is so little prosecution and so many accusations in this case makes me think there is little substance to the allegations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally , I think if it was truly child porn , they 'd do more than shut down the website .
They 'd find some names and throw them in jail .
The fact that there is so little prosecution and so many accusations in this case makes me think there is little substance to the allegations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally, I think if it was truly child porn, they'd do more than shut down the website.
They'd find some names and throw them in jail.
The fact that there is so little prosecution and so many accusations in this case makes me think there is little substance to the allegations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215159</id>
	<title>Huh? Did they forget to pay the bribes?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244110920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was kinda amused when I read this. How did they fuck up? Did they refuse to hand over customer data without a warrant, did they forget to pay the kickback or why are they being singled out?</p><p>They're anything but the only ISP or hosting provider that hosts botnet control servers or other shady deals. No, I'm not even talking about the RBN or other "services" where our authorities claim they're "out of reach" because they are in countries that have better problems than to go on a wild goose chase and roll stones uphill.</p><p>So what's special about them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was kinda amused when I read this .
How did they fuck up ?
Did they refuse to hand over customer data without a warrant , did they forget to pay the kickback or why are they being singled out ? They 're anything but the only ISP or hosting provider that hosts botnet control servers or other shady deals .
No , I 'm not even talking about the RBN or other " services " where our authorities claim they 're " out of reach " because they are in countries that have better problems than to go on a wild goose chase and roll stones uphill.So what 's special about them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was kinda amused when I read this.
How did they fuck up?
Did they refuse to hand over customer data without a warrant, did they forget to pay the kickback or why are they being singled out?They're anything but the only ISP or hosting provider that hosts botnet control servers or other shady deals.
No, I'm not even talking about the RBN or other "services" where our authorities claim they're "out of reach" because they are in countries that have better problems than to go on a wild goose chase and roll stones uphill.So what's special about them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</id>
	<title>OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome, Firefox and IE, could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.</p><p>As a second note, do you think it would be possible to roll your new changes out to something other than front page articles until you actually get them working properly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome , Firefox and IE , could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.As a second note , do you think it would be possible to roll your new changes out to something other than front page articles until you actually get them working properly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome, Firefox and IE, could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.As a second note, do you think it would be possible to roll your new changes out to something other than front page articles until you actually get them working properly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214701</id>
	<title>Though I must admit...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244108700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/~argent/journal/229471" title="slashdot.org">I've been blindsided by things too</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>This seems to have been a bug that ONLY bit you if you selected "classic view" AND "low bandwidth".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been blindsided by things too [ slashdot.org ] This seems to have been a bug that ONLY bit you if you selected " classic view " AND " low bandwidth " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been blindsided by things too [slashdot.org]This seems to have been a bug that ONLY bit you if you selected "classic view" AND "low bandwidth".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213499</id>
	<title>Only diff this will make is in some DA's resume.</title>
	<author>d474</author>
	<datestamp>1244146320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like removing a telephone from the street corner in an attempt to thwart phone scams: Endless supply of phones for the evil-doers to move to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like removing a telephone from the street corner in an attempt to thwart phone scams : Endless supply of phones for the evil-doers to move to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like removing a telephone from the street corner in an attempt to thwart phone scams: Endless supply of phones for the evil-doers to move to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215355</id>
	<title>legitimate content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244111820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the "legitimate content" owners? If I was running a business, which provided my family income (6 dependents), and supported a customer base with services, the FTC just killed it without warning or justification.</p><p>You don't shut down a phone company (e.g. AT&amp;T or Sprint) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone. If a local phone company or branch telephone office is "directly involved", again, the FTC does -NOT- kill phone service to the customers and businesses in the area.</p><p>"Sometime on Tuesday, more than 15,000 Web sites connected to San Jose, Calif., based Triple Fiber Network (3FN.net) went dark."  How many thousands of those sites were legitimate businesses or customers who have been seriously hurt by the FTC exceeding its authority and requesting that upstream providers breach their contracts with 3FN.net. When one of these businesses goes under, or the soldier in Korea can't get the streaming video of his childs' birthday party, who do they call? The FTC?</p><p>The government is proud of itself for not doing its job. Actually prosecuting the criminals. If there haven't been any crimes, they had no right. If there have been crimes, they have a responsibility to prosecute. Either way, this action was both wrong and irresponsible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the " legitimate content " owners ?
If I was running a business , which provided my family income ( 6 dependents ) , and supported a customer base with services , the FTC just killed it without warning or justification.You do n't shut down a phone company ( e.g .
AT&amp;T or Sprint ) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone .
If a local phone company or branch telephone office is " directly involved " , again , the FTC does -NOT- kill phone service to the customers and businesses in the area .
" Sometime on Tuesday , more than 15,000 Web sites connected to San Jose , Calif. , based Triple Fiber Network ( 3FN.net ) went dark .
" How many thousands of those sites were legitimate businesses or customers who have been seriously hurt by the FTC exceeding its authority and requesting that upstream providers breach their contracts with 3FN.net .
When one of these businesses goes under , or the soldier in Korea ca n't get the streaming video of his childs ' birthday party , who do they call ?
The FTC ? The government is proud of itself for not doing its job .
Actually prosecuting the criminals .
If there have n't been any crimes , they had no right .
If there have been crimes , they have a responsibility to prosecute .
Either way , this action was both wrong and irresponsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the "legitimate content" owners?
If I was running a business, which provided my family income (6 dependents), and supported a customer base with services, the FTC just killed it without warning or justification.You don't shut down a phone company (e.g.
AT&amp;T or Sprint) if someone is commiting crimes using a phone.
If a local phone company or branch telephone office is "directly involved", again, the FTC does -NOT- kill phone service to the customers and businesses in the area.
"Sometime on Tuesday, more than 15,000 Web sites connected to San Jose, Calif., based Triple Fiber Network (3FN.net) went dark.
"  How many thousands of those sites were legitimate businesses or customers who have been seriously hurt by the FTC exceeding its authority and requesting that upstream providers breach their contracts with 3FN.net.
When one of these businesses goes under, or the soldier in Korea can't get the streaming video of his childs' birthday party, who do they call?
The FTC?The government is proud of itself for not doing its job.
Actually prosecuting the criminals.
If there haven't been any crimes, they had no right.
If there have been crimes, they have a responsibility to prosecute.
Either way, this action was both wrong and irresponsible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429</id>
	<title>Quite a list</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1244146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.</i> <br> <br>

But what makes it different than any other ISP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest .
But what makes it different than any other ISP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.
But what makes it different than any other ISP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213933</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1244148060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome, Firefox and IE, could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.</i></p><p>Classic Index + Classic Discussion = works great.</p><p>Sure you miss out on the few worthwhile features they've added, but I'd much rather be able to <b>read</b> the summaries and comments (never actually tried reading the articles -- do they work?) than have shiny new (broken) widgets all over the place.</p><p>One caveat though: even classic views are broken in IE6 now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome , Firefox and IE , could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.Classic Index + Classic Discussion = works great.Sure you miss out on the few worthwhile features they 've added , but I 'd much rather be able to read the summaries and comments ( never actually tried reading the articles -- do they work ?
) than have shiny new ( broken ) widgets all over the place.One caveat though : even classic views are broken in IE6 now : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that slashdot looks and acts differently in Chrome, Firefox and IE, could someone please tell which damn browser slashdot has decided to target so that I know which one is most likely to actually work when I click something.Classic Index + Classic Discussion = works great.Sure you miss out on the few worthwhile features they've added, but I'd much rather be able to read the summaries and comments (never actually tried reading the articles -- do they work?
) than have shiny new (broken) widgets all over the place.One caveat though: even classic views are broken in IE6 now :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623</id>
	<title>Turn off Beta!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244146860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turn off the damn stupid "beta" index.</p><p>I wish they'd just frozen the interface about three years ago, but at least you CAN disable most of the gratuitous Javascript crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turn off the damn stupid " beta " index.I wish they 'd just frozen the interface about three years ago , but at least you CAN disable most of the gratuitous Javascript crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turn off the damn stupid "beta" index.I wish they'd just frozen the interface about three years ago, but at least you CAN disable most of the gratuitous Javascript crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215131</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a list</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1244110800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm pretty sure Verizon, Time Warner, AT&amp;T, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, just to name a few ISPs, aren't <i>directly involved</i> in any illegal activities on their network.</p></div><p>At least, not <em>knowingly</em> directly involved.</p><p>Since when does direct involvement require knowledge?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure Verizon , Time Warner , AT&amp;T , Comcast , Cablevision , Cox , Suddenlink , just to name a few ISPs , are n't directly involved in any illegal activities on their network.At least , not knowingly directly involved.Since when does direct involvement require knowledge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure Verizon, Time Warner, AT&amp;T, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, just to name a few ISPs, aren't directly involved in any illegal activities on their network.At least, not knowingly directly involved.Since when does direct involvement require knowledge?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213403</id>
	<title>Smoking</title>
	<author>phissur</author>
	<datestamp>1244146020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>may be a smoke screen</i> <br>
Forget the illegal pharmacies and scams.  They're promoting smoking!<br>
Think of the children!</htmltext>
<tokenext>may be a smoke screen Forget the illegal pharmacies and scams .
They 're promoting smoking !
Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may be a smoke screen 
Forget the illegal pharmacies and scams.
They're promoting smoking!
Think of the children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28217641</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>shanen</author>
	<datestamp>1244127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your defeatist attitude is neither helpful nor constructive. The spammers love you for it.</p><p>We can make progress fighting against the spammers, and every little victory counts. Making the Internet work is a highly cooperative enterprise, and that includes the efforts to fight spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your defeatist attitude is neither helpful nor constructive .
The spammers love you for it.We can make progress fighting against the spammers , and every little victory counts .
Making the Internet work is a highly cooperative enterprise , and that includes the efforts to fight spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your defeatist attitude is neither helpful nor constructive.
The spammers love you for it.We can make progress fighting against the spammers, and every little victory counts.
Making the Internet work is a highly cooperative enterprise, and that includes the efforts to fight spammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213417</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you for sure, it sure as hell isn't Firefox. I'm about to give up, and my karma rating has been 'Excellent' ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you for sure , it sure as hell is n't Firefox .
I 'm about to give up , and my karma rating has been 'Excellent ' ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you for sure, it sure as hell isn't Firefox.
I'm about to give up, and my karma rating has been 'Excellent' ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219723</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>TempeTerra</author>
	<datestamp>1244196780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try using the classic index and classic discussion system from your user preferences. It turns slashdot into a mere web page instead of a web 2.0 monstrosity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try using the classic index and classic discussion system from your user preferences .
It turns slashdot into a mere web page instead of a web 2.0 monstrosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try using the classic index and classic discussion system from your user preferences.
It turns slashdot into a mere web page instead of a web 2.0 monstrosity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214957</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1244109900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ISPs don't host porn, they host websites.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
As much as I'd like to agree with you, this one sentence is not exactly true.
Some ISPs do specialize in hosting porn content. I know because I looked into this myself when I looked into starting a porn web site. I did whois searches on a couple of popular porn web sites, and that gave me the name of their ISPs. And from those results, many ISPs did look like standard cookie-cut run-of-the-mill ISPs, but a few were advertising the fact that they were porn-specific ISPs (which was actually reassuring to me because they specifically addressed many of the concerns that a porn-site operator would have).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs do n't host porn , they host websites .
As much as I 'd like to agree with you , this one sentence is not exactly true .
Some ISPs do specialize in hosting porn content .
I know because I looked into this myself when I looked into starting a porn web site .
I did whois searches on a couple of popular porn web sites , and that gave me the name of their ISPs .
And from those results , many ISPs did look like standard cookie-cut run-of-the-mill ISPs , but a few were advertising the fact that they were porn-specific ISPs ( which was actually reassuring to me because they specifically addressed many of the concerns that a porn-site operator would have ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs don't host porn, they host websites.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, this one sentence is not exactly true.
Some ISPs do specialize in hosting porn content.
I know because I looked into this myself when I looked into starting a porn web site.
I did whois searches on a couple of popular porn web sites, and that gave me the name of their ISPs.
And from those results, many ISPs did look like standard cookie-cut run-of-the-mill ISPs, but a few were advertising the fact that they were porn-specific ISPs (which was actually reassuring to me because they specifically addressed many of the concerns that a porn-site operator would have).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216993</id>
	<title>I guess it didn't occur to you...</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1244121420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that it's a sting operation, and that other agencies are actually watching to see WHERE the rats scurry to next?  That possibility was already hinted in TFA, was it not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that it 's a sting operation , and that other agencies are actually watching to see WHERE the rats scurry to next ?
That possibility was already hinted in TFA , was it not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that it's a sting operation, and that other agencies are actually watching to see WHERE the rats scurry to next?
That possibility was already hinted in TFA, was it not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221559</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1244212980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot is now slow, bloated, and fucked up</p></div><p>How is this different from the state of modern computing in general?</p><p>Ontopic:  How is this different from the state of modern government actions in general?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here.Slashdot is now slow , bloated , and fucked upHow is this different from the state of modern computing in general ? Ontopic : How is this different from the state of modern government actions in general ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.Slashdot is now slow, bloated, and fucked upHow is this different from the state of modern computing in general?Ontopic:  How is this different from the state of modern government actions in general?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214417</id>
	<title>The Federal Trade Commission and You</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244107080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI. You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?</i> </p><p><a href="http://www.ftc.gov/" title="ftc.gov">Federal Trade Commission [Home]</a> [ftc.gov]</p><p><a href="http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/auth4.shtm" title="ftc.gov">A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission's</a> [ftc.gov]<br>Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority (1) [1995]</p><p><a href="http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/stats.shtm" title="ftc.gov">Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission</a> [ftc.gov] [Home]</p><p>"AN ACT To <i>enhance</i> Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes."<br><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109qGhrMr::" title="loc.gov">U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006</a> [loc.gov] [Final - Full Text]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , that 's a shame , maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI .
You know , someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats ' ?
Federal Trade Commission [ Home ] [ ftc.gov ] A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission 's [ ftc.gov ] Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority ( 1 ) [ 1995 ] Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission [ ftc.gov ] [ Home ] " AN ACT To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam , spyware , and cross-border fraud and deception , and for other purposes. " U.S .
SAFE WEB Act of 2006 [ loc.gov ] [ Final - Full Text ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI.
You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?
Federal Trade Commission [Home] [ftc.gov]A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission's [ftc.gov]Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority (1) [1995]Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission [ftc.gov] [Home]"AN ACT To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes."U.S.
SAFE WEB Act of 2006 [loc.gov] [Final - Full Text]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213593</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>eleuthero</author>
	<datestamp>1244146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went for six months using firefox 2 (the company I work for would not let us upgrade) with horrible broken page notices for half of slashdot. They recently lifted the ban and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. now works</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went for six months using firefox 2 ( the company I work for would not let us upgrade ) with horrible broken page notices for half of slashdot .
They recently lifted the ban and / .
now works</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went for six months using firefox 2 (the company I work for would not let us upgrade) with horrible broken page notices for half of slashdot.
They recently lifted the ban and /.
now works</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216193</id>
	<title>Violence and Incest Porn?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244116320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest," the FTC said.</i></p><p>Pornography featuring violence or incest is illegal? Even if it is consensual? Or is the FTC just saying they don't like it, and the average joe would find it repugnant, which makes it a good marketing weapon?</p><p>I can understand that bestiality may cross the line of cruelty to animals (yes, insert joke here, but you get the point), and maybe there are some blue laws in individual states about incest. But is the FTC saying those things are "illegal", "malicious", or "harmful"? And under what law?</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I don't find that stuff appealing, but I don't find gay sex appealing either. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it's just not my thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest , " the FTC said.Pornography featuring violence or incest is illegal ?
Even if it is consensual ?
Or is the FTC just saying they do n't like it , and the average joe would find it repugnant , which makes it a good marketing weapon ? I can understand that bestiality may cross the line of cruelty to animals ( yes , insert joke here , but you get the point ) , and maybe there are some blue laws in individual states about incest .
But is the FTC saying those things are " illegal " , " malicious " , or " harmful " ?
And under what law ? Do n't get me wrong , I do n't find that stuff appealing , but I do n't find gay sex appealing either .
That does n't mean it 's wrong -- it 's just not my thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest," the FTC said.Pornography featuring violence or incest is illegal?
Even if it is consensual?
Or is the FTC just saying they don't like it, and the average joe would find it repugnant, which makes it a good marketing weapon?I can understand that bestiality may cross the line of cruelty to animals (yes, insert joke here, but you get the point), and maybe there are some blue laws in individual states about incest.
But is the FTC saying those things are "illegal", "malicious", or "harmful"?
And under what law?Don't get me wrong, I don't find that stuff appealing, but I don't find gay sex appealing either.
That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it's just not my thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213807</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>Xaositecte</author>
	<datestamp>1244147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think this might be one of those "sending a message" things?</p><p>Y'know, shut down one ISP under a justification that could, potentially, target <i>any</i> ISP in the Untied States?  Start with a small one that nobody has ever heard of, and won't ruffle many feathers.  Then, whenever an ISP is getting too uppity, politely bring up the topic of 3FN, and oh, wouldn't it be a tragedy if that happened to a larger ISP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think this might be one of those " sending a message " things ? Y'know , shut down one ISP under a justification that could , potentially , target any ISP in the Untied States ?
Start with a small one that nobody has ever heard of , and wo n't ruffle many feathers .
Then , whenever an ISP is getting too uppity , politely bring up the topic of 3FN , and oh , would n't it be a tragedy if that happened to a larger ISP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think this might be one of those "sending a message" things?Y'know, shut down one ISP under a justification that could, potentially, target any ISP in the Untied States?
Start with a small one that nobody has ever heard of, and won't ruffle many feathers.
Then, whenever an ISP is getting too uppity, politely bring up the topic of 3FN, and oh, wouldn't it be a tragedy if that happened to a larger ISP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214661</id>
	<title>Re:Only diff this will make is in some DA's resume</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1244108460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they are trying to imprison the criminals also. It's hard to setup a botnet out of a federal prison.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are trying to imprison the criminals also .
It 's hard to setup a botnet out of a federal prison .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are trying to imprison the criminals also.
It's hard to setup a botnet out of a federal prison.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213497</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>When I am near the bottom of the day's list of articles, Firefox re-renders of a full 30 seconds every time I go back to the main page from reading an article.</p><p>PITA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.When I am near the bottom of the day 's list of articles , Firefox re-renders of a full 30 seconds every time I go back to the main page from reading an article.PITA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.When I am near the bottom of the day's list of articles, Firefox re-renders of a full 30 seconds every time I go back to the main page from reading an article.PITA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28220393</id>
	<title>Do you trust the FTC?</title>
	<author>Brian Ribbon</author>
	<datestamp>1244205420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>from the child-porn-world-needs-more-suicides dept.</i>"</p><p>Several people who I know have been victims of child porn laws, despite not having paid for or traded anything and having therefore not encouraged or facilitated production. Rather than making assumptions about child pornography, you may consider <a href="http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:\_Child\_Pornography" title="newgon.com">researching</a> [newgon.com] the issue. You should also remember that visiting websites which are alleged to contain illegal images - <b>without loading the images</b> (by disabling images in the browser) - is not illegal and can provide significant insight into the issue.</p><p>I'd also suggest a critical consideration of the FTC's statements. The war on child pornography is often used as a cover for wars on slightly more popular content which happens to offend the state. I find it rather bizarre that so many people who are critical of the state tend to believe whatever the state and its subsidiaries says about child porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" from the child-porn-world-needs-more-suicides dept .
" Several people who I know have been victims of child porn laws , despite not having paid for or traded anything and having therefore not encouraged or facilitated production .
Rather than making assumptions about child pornography , you may consider researching [ newgon.com ] the issue .
You should also remember that visiting websites which are alleged to contain illegal images - without loading the images ( by disabling images in the browser ) - is not illegal and can provide significant insight into the issue.I 'd also suggest a critical consideration of the FTC 's statements .
The war on child pornography is often used as a cover for wars on slightly more popular content which happens to offend the state .
I find it rather bizarre that so many people who are critical of the state tend to believe whatever the state and its subsidiaries says about child porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"from the child-porn-world-needs-more-suicides dept.
"Several people who I know have been victims of child porn laws, despite not having paid for or traded anything and having therefore not encouraged or facilitated production.
Rather than making assumptions about child pornography, you may consider researching [newgon.com] the issue.
You should also remember that visiting websites which are alleged to contain illegal images - without loading the images (by disabling images in the browser) - is not illegal and can provide significant insight into the issue.I'd also suggest a critical consideration of the FTC's statements.
The war on child pornography is often used as a cover for wars on slightly more popular content which happens to offend the state.
I find it rather bizarre that so many people who are critical of the state tend to believe whatever the state and its subsidiaries says about child porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are "targeting" all browsers.  <b>Everything sucks</b>.</p><p>Their Web 2.0 hard-on must be draining the blood from their brains.  Slashdot is now slow, bloated, and fucked up.</p><p>Just try getting that asinine slide-bar to show <b>ALL</b> posts.  No can do, because the script kiddies coding it up are too stupid to handle boundary conditions properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are " targeting " all browsers .
Everything sucks.Their Web 2.0 hard-on must be draining the blood from their brains .
Slashdot is now slow , bloated , and fucked up.Just try getting that asinine slide-bar to show ALL posts .
No can do , because the script kiddies coding it up are too stupid to handle boundary conditions properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Slashdot clowns are "targeting" all browsers.
Everything sucks.Their Web 2.0 hard-on must be draining the blood from their brains.
Slashdot is now slow, bloated, and fucked up.Just try getting that asinine slide-bar to show ALL posts.
No can do, because the script kiddies coding it up are too stupid to handle boundary conditions properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213621</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>lavacano201014</author>
	<datestamp>1244146860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had it that way once. Then I accidentally clicked, and now I can't set it back</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had it that way once .
Then I accidentally clicked , and now I ca n't set it back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had it that way once.
Then I accidentally clicked, and now I can't set it back</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213585</id>
	<title>Props to NASA too, for this!</title>
	<author>AMuse</author>
	<datestamp>1244146680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another thing that NASA has done to help society, that people don't know.  NASA's Inspector General (IG) played a large role in helping shut this den of crap down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another thing that NASA has done to help society , that people do n't know .
NASA 's Inspector General ( IG ) played a large role in helping shut this den of crap down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another thing that NASA has done to help society, that people don't know.
NASA's Inspector General (IG) played a large role in helping shut this den of crap down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213375</id>
	<title>What the article leaves out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.'</p></div><p>Yes but how much were they charging per month? It doesn't say. You probably get all this stuff with the "premium" package.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest .
'Yes but how much were they charging per month ?
It does n't say .
You probably get all this stuff with the " premium " package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.
'Yes but how much were they charging per month?
It doesn't say.
You probably get all this stuff with the "premium" package.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214843</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244109300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's got to be a joke, there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP's not liable for such things.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are safe harbor provisions that protect ISPs from liability for some of those things when the acts are committed by the ISPs users (not the ISP itself), and the ISP complies with certain other rules (including, as a general rule, taking effective action when they become aware of -- on their own or by notification -- the violation being perpetrated via their network.)</p><p>But this isn't about things Pricewert's users were doing without the knowledge of the ISP; from the complaint which resulted in the order here:</p><p><i>14. Pricewert is fully aware that it is hosting huge volumes of illegal, malicious, and harmful content. Moreover, Pricewert actively shields its criminal clientele by either ignoring take-down requests issued by the online security community or shifting its criminal clients to other Internet Protocol addresses controlled by Pricewert so that they may evade detection.<br>15. In addition to hosting illegal, malicious, and harmful content, Pricewert actively colludes with its criminal clientele in several areas, including the maintenance and deployment of bot nets.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>22. Pricewert's involvement in botnet activity is detailed in several Internet ICQ chat logs obtained by the FTC. In these logs, Pricewert's senior staff, including its Head of Programming, are observed directly participating in the creation and configuration of a botnet.<br>23. In one of the chats obtained by the FTC, Pricewert's Head of Programming is engaged in a conversation with a customer regarding the number of compromised computers the customer controls. The customer informs Pricewert that he controls 200,000 bots and needs assistance configuring the botnet. The head of Pricewert's Programming Department agrees to assist, but complains upon learning of the size of the botnet that it will require a lot of work.<br>24. In a second chat, a Senior Project Manager for Pricewert is told by a customer<br>that the customer controls a massive and rapidly growing network ofbots. Pricewert's Sales Director reassures the customer that "[w]ell, we know how to manage it."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got to be a joke , there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP 's not liable for such things.There are safe harbor provisions that protect ISPs from liability for some of those things when the acts are committed by the ISPs users ( not the ISP itself ) , and the ISP complies with certain other rules ( including , as a general rule , taking effective action when they become aware of -- on their own or by notification -- the violation being perpetrated via their network .
) But this is n't about things Pricewert 's users were doing without the knowledge of the ISP ; from the complaint which resulted in the order here : 14 .
Pricewert is fully aware that it is hosting huge volumes of illegal , malicious , and harmful content .
Moreover , Pricewert actively shields its criminal clientele by either ignoring take-down requests issued by the online security community or shifting its criminal clients to other Internet Protocol addresses controlled by Pricewert so that they may evade detection.15 .
In addition to hosting illegal , malicious , and harmful content , Pricewert actively colludes with its criminal clientele in several areas , including the maintenance and deployment of bot nets....22 .
Pricewert 's involvement in botnet activity is detailed in several Internet ICQ chat logs obtained by the FTC .
In these logs , Pricewert 's senior staff , including its Head of Programming , are observed directly participating in the creation and configuration of a botnet.23 .
In one of the chats obtained by the FTC , Pricewert 's Head of Programming is engaged in a conversation with a customer regarding the number of compromised computers the customer controls .
The customer informs Pricewert that he controls 200,000 bots and needs assistance configuring the botnet .
The head of Pricewert 's Programming Department agrees to assist , but complains upon learning of the size of the botnet that it will require a lot of work.24 .
In a second chat , a Senior Project Manager for Pricewert is told by a customerthat the customer controls a massive and rapidly growing network ofbots .
Pricewert 's Sales Director reassures the customer that " [ w ] ell , we know how to manage it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got to be a joke, there are plenty of sections of the law that make ISP's not liable for such things.There are safe harbor provisions that protect ISPs from liability for some of those things when the acts are committed by the ISPs users (not the ISP itself), and the ISP complies with certain other rules (including, as a general rule, taking effective action when they become aware of -- on their own or by notification -- the violation being perpetrated via their network.
)But this isn't about things Pricewert's users were doing without the knowledge of the ISP; from the complaint which resulted in the order here:14.
Pricewert is fully aware that it is hosting huge volumes of illegal, malicious, and harmful content.
Moreover, Pricewert actively shields its criminal clientele by either ignoring take-down requests issued by the online security community or shifting its criminal clients to other Internet Protocol addresses controlled by Pricewert so that they may evade detection.15.
In addition to hosting illegal, malicious, and harmful content, Pricewert actively colludes with its criminal clientele in several areas, including the maintenance and deployment of bot nets....22.
Pricewert's involvement in botnet activity is detailed in several Internet ICQ chat logs obtained by the FTC.
In these logs, Pricewert's senior staff, including its Head of Programming, are observed directly participating in the creation and configuration of a botnet.23.
In one of the chats obtained by the FTC, Pricewert's Head of Programming is engaged in a conversation with a customer regarding the number of compromised computers the customer controls.
The customer informs Pricewert that he controls 200,000 bots and needs assistance configuring the botnet.
The head of Pricewert's Programming Department agrees to assist, but complains upon learning of the size of the botnet that it will require a lot of work.24.
In a second chat, a Senior Project Manager for Pricewert is told by a customerthat the customer controls a massive and rapidly growing network ofbots.
Pricewert's Sales Director reassures the customer that "[w]ell, we know how to manage it.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214383</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244106900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the child pornography thing.  However, I think you're letting the ISP off too easy.  I don't know the details of this particular case, but generally there are quite a lot of smallish hosts with a high percentage of clients who are "doing bad things".  They look the other way because the checks cash and the odds of getting penalized are low, and even if they do get penalized it will probably be minimal (i.e. cost of doing business); sometimes these scumbags are even willing participants in it.  Now I know ISPs cannot be held responsible for everything that all of their users do, but it is often the case that the ISP is well aware of what is going on.  I haven't read the article, but I suspect that was the case in this instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the child pornography thing .
However , I think you 're letting the ISP off too easy .
I do n't know the details of this particular case , but generally there are quite a lot of smallish hosts with a high percentage of clients who are " doing bad things " .
They look the other way because the checks cash and the odds of getting penalized are low , and even if they do get penalized it will probably be minimal ( i.e .
cost of doing business ) ; sometimes these scumbags are even willing participants in it .
Now I know ISPs can not be held responsible for everything that all of their users do , but it is often the case that the ISP is well aware of what is going on .
I have n't read the article , but I suspect that was the case in this instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the child pornography thing.
However, I think you're letting the ISP off too easy.
I don't know the details of this particular case, but generally there are quite a lot of smallish hosts with a high percentage of clients who are "doing bad things".
They look the other way because the checks cash and the odds of getting penalized are low, and even if they do get penalized it will probably be minimal (i.e.
cost of doing business); sometimes these scumbags are even willing participants in it.
Now I know ISPs cannot be held responsible for everything that all of their users do, but it is often the case that the ISP is well aware of what is going on.
I haven't read the article, but I suspect that was the case in this instance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a list</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what makes it different than any other ISP?</p></div><p>You mean other than this quote from the second sentence?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert <i>was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets, among other illegal activities</i></p> </div><p>I'm pretty sure Verizon, Time Warner, AT&amp;T, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, just to name a few ISPs, aren't <i>directly involved</i> in any illegal activities on their network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what makes it different than any other ISP ? You mean other than this quote from the second sentence ? The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets , among other illegal activities I 'm pretty sure Verizon , Time Warner , AT&amp;T , Comcast , Cablevision , Cox , Suddenlink , just to name a few ISPs , are n't directly involved in any illegal activities on their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what makes it different than any other ISP?You mean other than this quote from the second sentence?The FTC alleges that 3FN/Pricewert was directly involved in setting up spam-spewing botnets, among other illegal activities I'm pretty sure Verizon, Time Warner, AT&amp;T, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Suddenlink, just to name a few ISPs, aren't directly involved in any illegal activities on their network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213503</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What doesn't work?  I've been using the firefox 3.5 betas and I haven't noticed anything overly broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does n't work ?
I 've been using the firefox 3.5 betas and I have n't noticed anything overly broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What doesn't work?
I've been using the firefox 3.5 betas and I haven't noticed anything overly broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214399</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a list</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1244107020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still think we should lay siege to Comcast HQ for the crap they have pulled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still think we should lay siege to Comcast HQ for the crap they have pulled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still think we should lay siege to Comcast HQ for the crap they have pulled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213361</id>
	<title>Holy FUD Campaign Batman!</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244145840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.'</p></div><p>What?  There weren't any terrorists or WMDs?  Won't anyone think of the WMDs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest.'What ?
There were n't any terrorists or WMDs ?
Wo n't anyone think of the WMDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.'What?
There weren't any terrorists or WMDs?
Won't anyone think of the WMDs?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214329</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244106600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another boring evening with the family.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another boring evening with the family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another boring evening with the family.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213755</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>paazin</author>
	<datestamp>1244147400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slashdot doesn't work in any browser.
<br> <br>
Also, they have a policy of launching new, untested, broken features mid week during peak usage.
<br> <br>
In addition, they have a policy of "belittle and close" when you submit a bug to sourceforge.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So they're pretty much like everywhere else, then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot does n't work in any browser .
Also , they have a policy of launching new , untested , broken features mid week during peak usage .
In addition , they have a policy of " belittle and close " when you submit a bug to sourceforge .
So they 're pretty much like everywhere else , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot doesn't work in any browser.
Also, they have a policy of launching new, untested, broken features mid week during peak usage.
In addition, they have a policy of "belittle and close" when you submit a bug to sourceforge.
So they're pretty much like everywhere else, then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213467</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't know 12chan had its own ISP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know 12chan had its own ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know 12chan had its own ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213769</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 for letting the USAF bomb the botnet leaders' houses!</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 for letting the USAF bomb the botnet leaders ' houses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 for letting the USAF bomb the botnet leaders' houses!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221355</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244212080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure the fact that this is interstate commerce gives them jurisdiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure the fact that this is interstate commerce gives them jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure the fact that this is interstate commerce gives them jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215225</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1244111160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot looks and works fine with IE.  Seriously.  No, I don't understand either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot looks and works fine with IE .
Seriously. No , I do n't understand either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot looks and works fine with IE.
Seriously.  No, I don't understand either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213443</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesnt work right in IE7 either lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>It doesnt work right in IE7 either lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesnt work right in IE7 either lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28217651</id>
	<title>How can they tell?</title>
	<author>jrockway</author>
	<datestamp>1244127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They claim the porn sites they shut down featured "incest".  How can you tell that from looking?</p><p>Oh, I get it... this is just something that sounds nice in sound-bite form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim the porn sites they shut down featured " incest " .
How can you tell that from looking ? Oh , I get it... this is just something that sounds nice in sound-bite form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim the porn sites they shut down featured "incest".
How can you tell that from looking?Oh, I get it... this is just something that sounds nice in sound-bite form.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214403</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244107020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISP will cough up the identity of customers under subpoena, which should be easy enough to get if some illegal activity is occurring. And if they don't, then you drag them into court to explain why not. We already have a process in place for allowing anonymity until it is abused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISP will cough up the identity of customers under subpoena , which should be easy enough to get if some illegal activity is occurring .
And if they do n't , then you drag them into court to explain why not .
We already have a process in place for allowing anonymity until it is abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISP will cough up the identity of customers under subpoena, which should be easy enough to get if some illegal activity is occurring.
And if they don't, then you drag them into court to explain why not.
We already have a process in place for allowing anonymity until it is abused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216151</id>
	<title>Smokecreen? I think not...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The story quotes a former Justice Dept. expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.</p></div></blockquote><p>Really? A smokescreen -- as in "An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions" -- for a larger criminal investigation? No, clearly not. If it was supposed to <i>conceal</i> the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation, the FTC probably wouldn't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case, specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation, <i>and then published the document detailing that on its website, on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction</i>.</p><p>The FTC press release is <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/3fn.shtm" title="ftc.gov">here</a> [ftc.gov]. The link on the case under "related items" takes you <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923148/index.shtm" title="ftc.gov">here</a> [ftc.gov]. From that page, you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923148/index.shtm" title="ftc.gov">this document</a> [ftc.gov] that was filed with the court, in which the FTC says (footnote, page 1):</p><p><b>It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway. Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - ifthe Commission's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.</b></p><p>The "larger criminal investigation" is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of "smokescreen".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story quotes a former Justice Dept .
expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN 's activities.Really ?
A smokescreen -- as in " An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions " -- for a larger criminal investigation ?
No , clearly not .
If it was supposed to conceal the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation , the FTC probably would n't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case , specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation , and then published the document detailing that on its website , on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction.The FTC press release is here [ ftc.gov ] .
The link on the case under " related items " takes you here [ ftc.gov ] .
From that page , you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get this document [ ftc.gov ] that was filed with the court , in which the FTC says ( footnote , page 1 ) : It is the Commission 's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway .
Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation , the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant 's data center on or about Wednesday , June 3 , 2009 .
The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission 's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3 , 2009 , so that - ifthe Commission 's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.The " larger criminal investigation " is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of " smokescreen " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story quotes a former Justice Dept.
expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.Really?
A smokescreen -- as in "An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions" -- for a larger criminal investigation?
No, clearly not.
If it was supposed to conceal the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation, the FTC probably wouldn't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case, specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation, and then published the document detailing that on its website, on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction.The FTC press release is here [ftc.gov].
The link on the case under "related items" takes you here [ftc.gov].
From that page, you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get this document [ftc.gov] that was filed with the court, in which the FTC says (footnote, page 1):It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway.
Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009.
The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - ifthe Commission's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.The "larger criminal investigation" is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of "smokescreen".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28285019</id>
	<title>Ok this is how I know its Bull.</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1244627160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call B.S.</p><p>"pornography featuring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... incest"</p><p>Really?!?</p><p>So each person showed an ID, a copy of their birth certificate and THEN they had sex.</p><p>I'd like to see what it really was.</p><p>Just make it up as you go along Mr. G man.  Nobody listens critcally anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call B.S .
" pornography featuring .. .
incest " Really ? ! ? So each person showed an ID , a copy of their birth certificate and THEN they had sex.I 'd like to see what it really was.Just make it up as you go along Mr. G man .
Nobody listens critcally anyway .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call B.S.
"pornography featuring ...
incest"Really?!?So each person showed an ID, a copy of their birth certificate and THEN they had sex.I'd like to see what it really was.Just make it up as you go along Mr. G man.
Nobody listens critcally anyway.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214073</id>
	<title>bastards</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1244148600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really I could care less what kind of content was found on the drives of the server- On the fact that they were running Botnets alone, these guys should have their balls put on display at the local batting cage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really I could care less what kind of content was found on the drives of the server- On the fact that they were running Botnets alone , these guys should have their balls put on display at the local batting cage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really I could care less what kind of content was found on the drives of the server- On the fact that they were running Botnets alone, these guys should have their balls put on display at the local batting cage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28222041</id>
	<title>I KNOW I'll be modded down for this but...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1244215200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or, possibly, the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site, and less like a news aggregator with comments. I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that wouldn't be so bad, provided it's done tastefully. You could still have the news and comments, but you could also have the social element running concurrently. Hell, they could even make it possible to opt out of the social networking part, and have a news-only account.</p><p>It'd be nice to have the ability to talk to like-minded people, not just in the context of a specific topic specified by the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , possibly , the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord 's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site , and less like a news aggregator with comments .
I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past.I think that would n't be so bad , provided it 's done tastefully .
You could still have the news and comments , but you could also have the social element running concurrently .
Hell , they could even make it possible to opt out of the social networking part , and have a news-only account.It 'd be nice to have the ability to talk to like-minded people , not just in the context of a specific topic specified by the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, possibly, the slashdot editors are playing passive-aggressive with the corporate overlord's demands that slashdot become more like a social networking site, and less like a news aggregator with comments.
I think this has been hinted at by Rob &amp; Jamie in the past.I think that wouldn't be so bad, provided it's done tastefully.
You could still have the news and comments, but you could also have the social element running concurrently.
Hell, they could even make it possible to opt out of the social networking part, and have a news-only account.It'd be nice to have the ability to talk to like-minded people, not just in the context of a specific topic specified by the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215509</id>
	<title>No decrease volume of spam.</title>
	<author>Neanderthal Ninny</author>
	<datestamp>1244112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike the take down of McColo, I see no decrease of volume of spam at all. In fact, since April 2009, my spam level has gone back to and within the last week, above the level of spam since the before McColo and my mail server statistics follow Spamcop.net statistics.<br><a href="http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamyear" title="spamcop.net">http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamyear</a> [spamcop.net]<br>IMHO, the botnets masters have dispersed themselves to multiple locations around the world so now taking down on an ISP will not affect them like McColo. On my mail server, most my spam comes from the Central and South America IP addresses and I think those systems are controlled by some bot master somewhere else.<br>However, IMHO, creating and hosting child porn is punishable by torture like waterboarding or worst. Dying is too good for those people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the take down of McColo , I see no decrease of volume of spam at all .
In fact , since April 2009 , my spam level has gone back to and within the last week , above the level of spam since the before McColo and my mail server statistics follow Spamcop.net statistics.http : //www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml ? spamyear [ spamcop.net ] IMHO , the botnets masters have dispersed themselves to multiple locations around the world so now taking down on an ISP will not affect them like McColo .
On my mail server , most my spam comes from the Central and South America IP addresses and I think those systems are controlled by some bot master somewhere else.However , IMHO , creating and hosting child porn is punishable by torture like waterboarding or worst .
Dying is too good for those people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the take down of McColo, I see no decrease of volume of spam at all.
In fact, since April 2009, my spam level has gone back to and within the last week, above the level of spam since the before McColo and my mail server statistics follow Spamcop.net statistics.http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamyear [spamcop.net]IMHO, the botnets masters have dispersed themselves to multiple locations around the world so now taking down on an ISP will not affect them like McColo.
On my mail server, most my spam comes from the Central and South America IP addresses and I think those systems are controlled by some bot master somewhere else.However, IMHO, creating and hosting child porn is punishable by torture like waterboarding or worst.
Dying is too good for those people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213437</id>
	<title>Incest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244146140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, how did they know that?</p><p>If these guys are as creepy as it sounds, you shouldn't take their word for it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , how did they know that ? If these guys are as creepy as it sounds , you should n't take their word for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, how did they know that?If these guys are as creepy as it sounds, you shouldn't take their word for it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214863</id>
	<title>I resemble that remark!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244109420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.</i> <br> <br>
Hey, some of the BEST pornography out there features violence and incest! (Not into dating outside my species, though). Since when is that illegal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest .
Hey , some of the BEST pornography out there features violence and incest !
( Not into dating outside my species , though ) .
Since when is that illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.
Hey, some of the BEST pornography out there features violence and incest!
(Not into dating outside my species, though).
Since when is that illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215667</id>
	<title>This sounds strange but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244113380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason this scares me.</p><p>I don't know much about what really happened and am in the process of reading the article but the idea that the gov can go and shutdown an entire web hosting company for content that is dubbed illegal seems bad.</p><p>Do you think its possible that the gov one day could take down a legitimate web hosting company that it says is hosting "illegal content"?  Or that maybe someone could start setting up illegitimate content on a webhosting company that hosts legitimate sites they want to take down and get the gov involved?</p><p>Maybe i'm just a bit paranoid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason this scares me.I do n't know much about what really happened and am in the process of reading the article but the idea that the gov can go and shutdown an entire web hosting company for content that is dubbed illegal seems bad.Do you think its possible that the gov one day could take down a legitimate web hosting company that it says is hosting " illegal content " ?
Or that maybe someone could start setting up illegitimate content on a webhosting company that hosts legitimate sites they want to take down and get the gov involved ? Maybe i 'm just a bit paranoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason this scares me.I don't know much about what really happened and am in the process of reading the article but the idea that the gov can go and shutdown an entire web hosting company for content that is dubbed illegal seems bad.Do you think its possible that the gov one day could take down a legitimate web hosting company that it says is hosting "illegal content"?
Or that maybe someone could start setting up illegitimate content on a webhosting company that hosts legitimate sites they want to take down and get the gov involved?Maybe i'm just a bit paranoid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214757</id>
	<title>Re:Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244108880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were not an ISP, but rather a web hosing company. Big difference - ISPs have such immunities, web hosing companies do not. Plus the fact that the company allegedly knew about the illegal activities doesn't help their case much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were not an ISP , but rather a web hosing company .
Big difference - ISPs have such immunities , web hosing companies do not .
Plus the fact that the company allegedly knew about the illegal activities does n't help their case much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were not an ISP, but rather a web hosing company.
Big difference - ISPs have such immunities, web hosing companies do not.
Plus the fact that the company allegedly knew about the illegal activities doesn't help their case much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315</id>
	<title>Hand It Over to Someone More Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Christopher Barton, lead research scientist at McAfee, said a number of 3FN domain name servers already have popped up at new locations online.<br> <br>

"The rats are running," Barton said.</p></div><p>Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI.  You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Leibowitz said his agency would continue to pursue other ISPs that "provide a haven for Internet criminals."<br> <br>

"This is a signal that we're going to go after you, and you're not going to be able to hide behind the shroud of the Internet and be immune from enforcement action," Leibowitz said.<br> <br>

A signed copy of the FTC's complaint is available here (PDF).</p></div><p>Ahahah, is that a <b>joke</b>?  <br> <br>

<b>FTC Chairman Leibowitz</b>: Let this very strongly worded complaint be a clear message to those that escaped yet again!  We <i>will</i> not falter until we have lodged very strongly worded complaints against each and every one of you at least four times!<br>
<b>Botnet Leader</b>:  Jesus Christ, I think I just shit myself!  My god, you just shut down one of like 50 ISPs we use!  We might even have to go to another <i>country</i> to run our lucrative operations!  Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands!  Laying on the beach, raking in cash!  Will you show us no mercy?!  <br> <br>

So tell me, when will all the court cases be launched from the data you collected from the servers you confiscated in this coup de grace?  They were operating out of Northern California, surely you contacted the appropriate law enforcement agencies, gathered a massive stack of warrants and cunningly orchestrated a perfect storming of all facilities to capture servers with juicy financial, IP, personal and foreign data?  And then surely you froze the assets in these accounts and entered all this as evidence in a mounting trial against business and individuals foreign and domestic?  Oh you didn't?  Oh, you just warned their ISPs and strutted around waving a complaint and acting like you saved the day?  Well done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christopher Barton , lead research scientist at McAfee , said a number of 3FN domain name servers already have popped up at new locations online .
" The rats are running , " Barton said.Oh , that 's a shame , maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI .
You know , someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats ' ? Leibowitz said his agency would continue to pursue other ISPs that " provide a haven for Internet criminals .
" " This is a signal that we 're going to go after you , and you 're not going to be able to hide behind the shroud of the Internet and be immune from enforcement action , " Leibowitz said .
A signed copy of the FTC 's complaint is available here ( PDF ) .Ahahah , is that a joke ?
FTC Chairman Leibowitz : Let this very strongly worded complaint be a clear message to those that escaped yet again !
We will not falter until we have lodged very strongly worded complaints against each and every one of you at least four times !
Botnet Leader : Jesus Christ , I think I just shit myself !
My god , you just shut down one of like 50 ISPs we use !
We might even have to go to another country to run our lucrative operations !
Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands !
Laying on the beach , raking in cash !
Will you show us no mercy ? !
So tell me , when will all the court cases be launched from the data you collected from the servers you confiscated in this coup de grace ?
They were operating out of Northern California , surely you contacted the appropriate law enforcement agencies , gathered a massive stack of warrants and cunningly orchestrated a perfect storming of all facilities to capture servers with juicy financial , IP , personal and foreign data ?
And then surely you froze the assets in these accounts and entered all this as evidence in a mounting trial against business and individuals foreign and domestic ?
Oh you did n't ?
Oh , you just warned their ISPs and strutted around waving a complaint and acting like you saved the day ?
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christopher Barton, lead research scientist at McAfee, said a number of 3FN domain name servers already have popped up at new locations online.
"The rats are running," Barton said.Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI.
You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?Leibowitz said his agency would continue to pursue other ISPs that "provide a haven for Internet criminals.
" 

"This is a signal that we're going to go after you, and you're not going to be able to hide behind the shroud of the Internet and be immune from enforcement action," Leibowitz said.
A signed copy of the FTC's complaint is available here (PDF).Ahahah, is that a joke?
FTC Chairman Leibowitz: Let this very strongly worded complaint be a clear message to those that escaped yet again!
We will not falter until we have lodged very strongly worded complaints against each and every one of you at least four times!
Botnet Leader:  Jesus Christ, I think I just shit myself!
My god, you just shut down one of like 50 ISPs we use!
We might even have to go to another country to run our lucrative operations!
Oh the horror of operating out of the Cayman Islands!
Laying on the beach, raking in cash!
Will you show us no mercy?!
So tell me, when will all the court cases be launched from the data you collected from the servers you confiscated in this coup de grace?
They were operating out of Northern California, surely you contacted the appropriate law enforcement agencies, gathered a massive stack of warrants and cunningly orchestrated a perfect storming of all facilities to capture servers with juicy financial, IP, personal and foreign data?
And then surely you froze the assets in these accounts and entered all this as evidence in a mounting trial against business and individuals foreign and domestic?
Oh you didn't?
Oh, you just warned their ISPs and strutted around waving a complaint and acting like you saved the day?
Well done.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28218693</id>
	<title>just that isp?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244138940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest"</p><p>thats the best description of the internet ive ever heard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal , malicious , and harmful content , including child pornography , botnet command and control servers , spyware , viruses , trojans , phishing related sites , illegal online pharmacies , investment and other Web-based scams , and pornography featuring violence , bestiality , and incest " thats the best description of the internet ive ever heard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest"thats the best description of the internet ive ever heard</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28218875</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whileread ingyou rpo st,  Itr iedto  ignorey ourty pos,et c.bu tIcju stcan'tdo tha tany more . Bythe way , whyis thi shap pening....??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whileread ingyou rpo st , Itr iedto ignorey ourty pos,et c.bu tIcju stcan'tdo tha tany more .
Bythe way , whyis thi shap pening.... ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whileread ingyou rpo st,  Itr iedto  ignorey ourty pos,et c.bu tIcju stcan'tdo tha tany more .
Bythe way , whyis thi shap pening....?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215161</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Which browser is slashdot supposed to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244110920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, I'm not going anywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I 'm not going anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I'm not going anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219981</id>
	<title>Re:"including child pornography..."</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1244200620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Totally, I think if it was truly child porn, they'd do more than shut down the website. They'd find some names and throw them in jail.</i></p><p>If the owners of said names are out of your jurisdiction(read: in another country)...how do you plan on doing that?</p><p>I live across the globe and have a hosting account with a US provider. The US can shut my account down if I were to host materials that violated US law, but short of convincing my government to arrest and/or extradite me...wtf are they going to do? Put me on the no-fly list?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally , I think if it was truly child porn , they 'd do more than shut down the website .
They 'd find some names and throw them in jail.If the owners of said names are out of your jurisdiction ( read : in another country ) ...how do you plan on doing that ? I live across the globe and have a hosting account with a US provider .
The US can shut my account down if I were to host materials that violated US law , but short of convincing my government to arrest and/or extradite me...wtf are they going to do ?
Put me on the no-fly list ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally, I think if it was truly child porn, they'd do more than shut down the website.
They'd find some names and throw them in jail.If the owners of said names are out of your jurisdiction(read: in another country)...how do you plan on doing that?I live across the globe and have a hosting account with a US provider.
The US can shut my account down if I were to host materials that violated US law, but short of convincing my government to arrest and/or extradite me...wtf are they going to do?
Put me on the no-fly list?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215559</id>
	<title>coincidentally</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1244112900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on the same day China shuts down a lot of illegal/distasteful websites too, like twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on the same day China shuts down a lot of illegal/distasteful websites too , like twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on the same day China shuts down a lot of illegal/distasteful websites too, like twitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28217641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28222041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28218875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28223909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1814201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28216993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28217641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28223909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1814201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28222041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28218875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28219723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28221559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28214071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28215225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1814201.28213627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
