<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_132236</id>
	<title>Wired for War</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244659500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:bittercode@gmail" rel="nofollow">stoolpigeon</a> writes <i>"The US Army's Future Combat Systems program calls for one third of their fighting strength to be robots by 2015.  The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United States, and they are controlling Predator unmanned vehicles.  Every branch of the US military has aggressive robotics programs in place.  This is not anything unusual.  Other nations are also developing and purchasing robotic systems designed to be used in combat.  Advances in communications, software and hardware make it inevitable that robotics will have a profound effect on conflict in the future.  The development of these systems has been rapid, and while technology hurtles forward, culture and understanding seem to lag behind.  Similar to the way our legal codes are playing catch-up with new technologies, combat-enabled robots raise questions and issues that did not even exist a short time ago. <em>Wired for War</em> by Dr. P. W. Singer is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested to dive into just what is going on all over the world with regards to robotics and their use by the military."</i> Read below for the rest of JR's review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>stoolpigeon writes " The US Army 's Future Combat Systems program calls for one third of their fighting strength to be robots by 2015 .
The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United States , and they are controlling Predator unmanned vehicles .
Every branch of the US military has aggressive robotics programs in place .
This is not anything unusual .
Other nations are also developing and purchasing robotic systems designed to be used in combat .
Advances in communications , software and hardware make it inevitable that robotics will have a profound effect on conflict in the future .
The development of these systems has been rapid , and while technology hurtles forward , culture and understanding seem to lag behind .
Similar to the way our legal codes are playing catch-up with new technologies , combat-enabled robots raise questions and issues that did not even exist a short time ago .
Wired for War by Dr. P. W. Singer is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested to dive into just what is going on all over the world with regards to robotics and their use by the military .
" Read below for the rest of JR 's review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stoolpigeon writes "The US Army's Future Combat Systems program calls for one third of their fighting strength to be robots by 2015.
The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United States, and they are controlling Predator unmanned vehicles.
Every branch of the US military has aggressive robotics programs in place.
This is not anything unusual.
Other nations are also developing and purchasing robotic systems designed to be used in combat.
Advances in communications, software and hardware make it inevitable that robotics will have a profound effect on conflict in the future.
The development of these systems has been rapid, and while technology hurtles forward, culture and understanding seem to lag behind.
Similar to the way our legal codes are playing catch-up with new technologies, combat-enabled robots raise questions and issues that did not even exist a short time ago.
Wired for War by Dr. P. W. Singer is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested to dive into just what is going on all over the world with regards to robotics and their use by the military.
" Read below for the rest of JR's review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283305</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1244663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Machines don't need sentience to kill.  They might need it to refrain from killing though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Machines do n't need sentience to kill .
They might need it to refrain from killing though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machines don't need sentience to kill.
They might need it to refrain from killing though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286073</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1244631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation.</p> </div><p>Very good point.  But in the long run we may wind up with the worst of both worlds.  The days of countries completely leveling other countries are probably not behind us either, just gone for a few decades or maybe even a few hundred years.  But the 'smart' weapon gives a perverse kind of slippery slope, where you can start brutalizing people gradually, with few headline grabbing problems at first, and work your way deeper into it over a period of time.  I think the remote, surgical kill has a corrupting effect on the culture.  Yes there are other positive dynamics also.  But I think as a society we would do best to start making a lot of thoughtful choices about where we're willing to go with this stuff, and how to stop it from going where we don't want to go.  Because by the time its become an obvious hell, we'll already be too far into it to get back again easily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation .
Very good point .
But in the long run we may wind up with the worst of both worlds .
The days of countries completely leveling other countries are probably not behind us either , just gone for a few decades or maybe even a few hundred years .
But the 'smart ' weapon gives a perverse kind of slippery slope , where you can start brutalizing people gradually , with few headline grabbing problems at first , and work your way deeper into it over a period of time .
I think the remote , surgical kill has a corrupting effect on the culture .
Yes there are other positive dynamics also .
But I think as a society we would do best to start making a lot of thoughtful choices about where we 're willing to go with this stuff , and how to stop it from going where we do n't want to go .
Because by the time its become an obvious hell , we 'll already be too far into it to get back again easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation.
Very good point.
But in the long run we may wind up with the worst of both worlds.
The days of countries completely leveling other countries are probably not behind us either, just gone for a few decades or maybe even a few hundred years.
But the 'smart' weapon gives a perverse kind of slippery slope, where you can start brutalizing people gradually, with few headline grabbing problems at first, and work your way deeper into it over a period of time.
I think the remote, surgical kill has a corrupting effect on the culture.
Yes there are other positive dynamics also.
But I think as a society we would do best to start making a lot of thoughtful choices about where we're willing to go with this stuff, and how to stop it from going where we don't want to go.
Because by the time its become an obvious hell, we'll already be too far into it to get back again easily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283807</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>gadget junkie</author>
	<datestamp>1244665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?</p></div><p>probably not, but in the politician's eyes, dying makes it different. If you are not taking casualties, you are much more likely to get involved in "the continuation of politics by other means". <br> Then again, the very big groundswell against the robots' ability to do mass killing is also  encouraging risk taking. after all, if no friendly gets killed, and no enemy gets killed either, the appetite for using force is greatly enhanced. Do remember that WWI came after a big period of relatively small and contained wars,  mostly engaging professional  [read: expendable] soldiers, and either quickly won or lost on the battlefield or contained by diplomats. When WWI came about, none of the parties involved was thinking that it could have such consequences, re <a href="http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/0375400524" title="amazon.com"> "the first world war"</a> [amazon.com] by John Keegan, or on a lighter note, Blackadder's explanation of how WWI started.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool ? probably not , but in the politician 's eyes , dying makes it different .
If you are not taking casualties , you are much more likely to get involved in " the continuation of politics by other means " .
Then again , the very big groundswell against the robots ' ability to do mass killing is also encouraging risk taking .
after all , if no friendly gets killed , and no enemy gets killed either , the appetite for using force is greatly enhanced .
Do remember that WWI came after a big period of relatively small and contained wars , mostly engaging professional [ read : expendable ] soldiers , and either quickly won or lost on the battlefield or contained by diplomats .
When WWI came about , none of the parties involved was thinking that it could have such consequences , re " the first world war " [ amazon.com ] by John Keegan , or on a lighter note , Blackadder 's explanation of how WWI started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?probably not, but in the politician's eyes, dying makes it different.
If you are not taking casualties, you are much more likely to get involved in "the continuation of politics by other means".
Then again, the very big groundswell against the robots' ability to do mass killing is also  encouraging risk taking.
after all, if no friendly gets killed, and no enemy gets killed either, the appetite for using force is greatly enhanced.
Do remember that WWI came after a big period of relatively small and contained wars,  mostly engaging professional  [read: expendable] soldiers, and either quickly won or lost on the battlefield or contained by diplomats.
When WWI came about, none of the parties involved was thinking that it could have such consequences, re  "the first world war" [amazon.com] by John Keegan, or on a lighter note, Blackadder's explanation of how WWI started.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285121</id>
	<title>No, it's a Win-Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians wanting to show manly action by going to wars will win as there is no backlash by the stream of bodies coming home.</p><p>Economy wins as it has to produce endless stream of efficient and automatic killing machines.</p><p>let me see, did I forget somebody... hmm can't recall</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians wanting to show manly action by going to wars will win as there is no backlash by the stream of bodies coming home.Economy wins as it has to produce endless stream of efficient and automatic killing machines.let me see , did I forget somebody... hmm ca n't recall</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians wanting to show manly action by going to wars will win as there is no backlash by the stream of bodies coming home.Economy wins as it has to produce endless stream of efficient and automatic killing machines.let me see, did I forget somebody... hmm can't recall</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288939</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Predators, Reapers etc are *GREAT* when we are fighting a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) who don't have an air force - i.e. as I see it, they are great for air-to-ground mission - no pilots lives risked, long loiter time, less expensive than manned a/c etc

But what happens if the U.S. has to fight someone with an air force?  Like China.  Or Russia. Those things (the UAVs) are going to be cannon fodder if they have to encounter enemy aircraft.

The U.S. has been spoiled by air supremacy in every conflict we have been in for the past 19 years, and I worry that we are now designing weapon systems that assume we will always have air supremacy.   Which is stupid.   By thinning out and phasing out our manned fighters, we are going to screw ourselves if we ever have to fight an opponent with an air force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Predators , Reapers etc are * GREAT * when we are fighting a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan ( and Pakistan ) who do n't have an air force - i.e .
as I see it , they are great for air-to-ground mission - no pilots lives risked , long loiter time , less expensive than manned a/c etc But what happens if the U.S. has to fight someone with an air force ?
Like China .
Or Russia .
Those things ( the UAVs ) are going to be cannon fodder if they have to encounter enemy aircraft .
The U.S. has been spoiled by air supremacy in every conflict we have been in for the past 19 years , and I worry that we are now designing weapon systems that assume we will always have air supremacy .
Which is stupid .
By thinning out and phasing out our manned fighters , we are going to screw ourselves if we ever have to fight an opponent with an air force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Predators, Reapers etc are *GREAT* when we are fighting a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) who don't have an air force - i.e.
as I see it, they are great for air-to-ground mission - no pilots lives risked, long loiter time, less expensive than manned a/c etc

But what happens if the U.S. has to fight someone with an air force?
Like China.
Or Russia.
Those things (the UAVs) are going to be cannon fodder if they have to encounter enemy aircraft.
The U.S. has been spoiled by air supremacy in every conflict we have been in for the past 19 years, and I worry that we are now designing weapon systems that assume we will always have air supremacy.
Which is stupid.
By thinning out and phasing out our manned fighters, we are going to screw ourselves if we ever have to fight an opponent with an air force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283501</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244664480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>Killing someone by drowning them in acid, spraying them with a chemical that melts their lungs, or other such, I personally would consider more immoral than a simple bullet to the head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.Killing someone by drowning them in acid , spraying them with a chemical that melts their lungs , or other such , I personally would consider more immoral than a simple bullet to the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.Killing someone by drowning them in acid, spraying them with a chemical that melts their lungs, or other such, I personally would consider more immoral than a simple bullet to the head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286699</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how bombing someone from 5,000 feet up in a plane is any different than remotely piloting a plane and bombing them from 5,000 feet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how bombing someone from 5,000 feet up in a plane is any different than remotely piloting a plane and bombing them from 5,000 feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how bombing someone from 5,000 feet up in a plane is any different than remotely piloting a plane and bombing them from 5,000 feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284363</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight. And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.</p></div><p>That is a vast oversimplification. Going against an unstoppable army of kill bots would just make people change their tactics. Instead of fighting a head on war against the kill bots they would use guerrilla and terrorist tactics like the IRA did against the British. Setting off nail bombs in school yards, assassinating public officials, that sort of thing.</p><p>That is why I honestly cannot even condemn the tactics of Al Queda, as horrible as they are. They do not have the military might to fight the US. They might as well be fighting killbots! So they decide to attack our soft white underbelly. Makes perfect sense from a strategic standpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the face of overwhelming military superiority ( a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots , operated by people safely located thousands of miles away ) , there is no fight .
And , with no fight , there are no casualties on either side.That is a vast oversimplification .
Going against an unstoppable army of kill bots would just make people change their tactics .
Instead of fighting a head on war against the kill bots they would use guerrilla and terrorist tactics like the IRA did against the British .
Setting off nail bombs in school yards , assassinating public officials , that sort of thing.That is why I honestly can not even condemn the tactics of Al Queda , as horrible as they are .
They do not have the military might to fight the US .
They might as well be fighting killbots !
So they decide to attack our soft white underbelly .
Makes perfect sense from a strategic standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight.
And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.That is a vast oversimplification.
Going against an unstoppable army of kill bots would just make people change their tactics.
Instead of fighting a head on war against the kill bots they would use guerrilla and terrorist tactics like the IRA did against the British.
Setting off nail bombs in school yards, assassinating public officials, that sort of thing.That is why I honestly cannot even condemn the tactics of Al Queda, as horrible as they are.
They do not have the military might to fight the US.
They might as well be fighting killbots!
So they decide to attack our soft white underbelly.
Makes perfect sense from a strategic standpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285387</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1244628900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan"</p><p>There seem to be an impressive number of "wedding parties" getting zapped. No smart insurgent would give the enemy help with damage assessment by fessing up to a successful airstrike...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan " There seem to be an impressive number of " wedding parties " getting zapped .
No smart insurgent would give the enemy help with damage assessment by fessing up to a successful airstrike.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan"There seem to be an impressive number of "wedding parties" getting zapped.
No smart insurgent would give the enemy help with damage assessment by fessing up to a successful airstrike...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283313</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Girls don't get drafted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Girls do n't get drafted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Girls don't get drafted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283767</id>
	<title>Poor intro but good book</title>
	<author>RandCraw</author>
	<datestamp>1244665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read the first few chapters and other than the lame introduction, the book is quite good.  I haven't read any discussion yet of the philosophical implications of automated warfare, though I hope there will be (and not just from professional 'ethicists').  Mostly the author discusses the pragmatics of building ever smarter weapons and intelligence systems, which is mighty relevant to the present, and most assuredly the future of war.</p><p>Even when the author doesn't use the word "robot", the trend he describes is clear.  Tomorrow's war will involve ever increasing amounts of separation between finger and trigger.  Is this a bad thing?  Obviously I want our side to win and I don't want any US or civilian casualties.  But I also don't want war ever to seem as easy as Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, and Wolfowitz assumed.  Automatic War is a sure recipe for an infinite series of mindless incursions and body counts.  This book should serve as a wake up call to the many aspects of war-by-wire, from technology to policy to ethics to cost.  Going to war must never devolve to the pressing of one red button.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Randy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the first few chapters and other than the lame introduction , the book is quite good .
I have n't read any discussion yet of the philosophical implications of automated warfare , though I hope there will be ( and not just from professional 'ethicists ' ) .
Mostly the author discusses the pragmatics of building ever smarter weapons and intelligence systems , which is mighty relevant to the present , and most assuredly the future of war.Even when the author does n't use the word " robot " , the trend he describes is clear .
Tomorrow 's war will involve ever increasing amounts of separation between finger and trigger .
Is this a bad thing ?
Obviously I want our side to win and I do n't want any US or civilian casualties .
But I also do n't want war ever to seem as easy as Bush , Rumsfield , Cheney , and Wolfowitz assumed .
Automatic War is a sure recipe for an infinite series of mindless incursions and body counts .
This book should serve as a wake up call to the many aspects of war-by-wire , from technology to policy to ethics to cost .
Going to war must never devolve to the pressing of one red button .
        Randy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the first few chapters and other than the lame introduction, the book is quite good.
I haven't read any discussion yet of the philosophical implications of automated warfare, though I hope there will be (and not just from professional 'ethicists').
Mostly the author discusses the pragmatics of building ever smarter weapons and intelligence systems, which is mighty relevant to the present, and most assuredly the future of war.Even when the author doesn't use the word "robot", the trend he describes is clear.
Tomorrow's war will involve ever increasing amounts of separation between finger and trigger.
Is this a bad thing?
Obviously I want our side to win and I don't want any US or civilian casualties.
But I also don't want war ever to seem as easy as Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, and Wolfowitz assumed.
Automatic War is a sure recipe for an infinite series of mindless incursions and body counts.
This book should serve as a wake up call to the many aspects of war-by-wire, from technology to policy to ethics to cost.
Going to war must never devolve to the pressing of one red button.
        Randy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283557</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1244664720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.</p></div><p>I think you are assuming they'd be on the aggressors side, and only they could have robots, rather than being on the victims side?  Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.I think you are assuming they 'd be on the aggressors side , and only they could have robots , rather than being on the victims side ?
Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.I think you are assuming they'd be on the aggressors side, and only they could have robots, rather than being on the victims side?
Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290925</id>
	<title>big dog et al</title>
	<author>anticharisma</author>
	<datestamp>1244718000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to say as soon as I saw Boston Dynamics' "Big Dog" I knew that was something special. Its a quantum leap over the status quo in robotics. This im sure is the beginning of a series of rapid incremental advances in robotics and robotic applications both civillian and military. The Japanese robotics nerds who hang around with the Japanese software nerds who brought you "RapeQuest" are going hell for leather to create real doll "sex bots", while I can imagine the imminent automation of army tanks so we have remotely or autonomous tanks fighting alongside real troops, who themselves carry much of their losistics into the battle field on robotic transports like big dog only bigger and better.

Basically I can believe that all the sci fi robot machines in pop culture movies will be possible due to advances in robotics. Ie those giant walking four legged machines in star wars and those two legged long legged walking machines seem in reach from here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say as soon as I saw Boston Dynamics ' " Big Dog " I knew that was something special .
Its a quantum leap over the status quo in robotics .
This im sure is the beginning of a series of rapid incremental advances in robotics and robotic applications both civillian and military .
The Japanese robotics nerds who hang around with the Japanese software nerds who brought you " RapeQuest " are going hell for leather to create real doll " sex bots " , while I can imagine the imminent automation of army tanks so we have remotely or autonomous tanks fighting alongside real troops , who themselves carry much of their losistics into the battle field on robotic transports like big dog only bigger and better .
Basically I can believe that all the sci fi robot machines in pop culture movies will be possible due to advances in robotics .
Ie those giant walking four legged machines in star wars and those two legged long legged walking machines seem in reach from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say as soon as I saw Boston Dynamics' "Big Dog" I knew that was something special.
Its a quantum leap over the status quo in robotics.
This im sure is the beginning of a series of rapid incremental advances in robotics and robotic applications both civillian and military.
The Japanese robotics nerds who hang around with the Japanese software nerds who brought you "RapeQuest" are going hell for leather to create real doll "sex bots", while I can imagine the imminent automation of army tanks so we have remotely or autonomous tanks fighting alongside real troops, who themselves carry much of their losistics into the battle field on robotic transports like big dog only bigger and better.
Basically I can believe that all the sci fi robot machines in pop culture movies will be possible due to advances in robotics.
Ie those giant walking four legged machines in star wars and those two legged long legged walking machines seem in reach from here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284747</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1244626260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When you kill someone face to face, you experience it more directly, and you put yourself more directly at risk. When you use tools to kill from a distance, the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny.</i></p><p>World War I just sent a telegram and tells you are 95 years late but it wants you to keep the poisonous gas, machine guns, and 10km range artillery.</p><p>They've had enough as it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you kill someone face to face , you experience it more directly , and you put yourself more directly at risk .
When you use tools to kill from a distance , the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny.World War I just sent a telegram and tells you are 95 years late but it wants you to keep the poisonous gas , machine guns , and 10km range artillery.They 've had enough as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you kill someone face to face, you experience it more directly, and you put yourself more directly at risk.
When you use tools to kill from a distance, the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny.World War I just sent a telegram and tells you are 95 years late but it wants you to keep the poisonous gas, machine guns, and 10km range artillery.They've had enough as it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283621</id>
	<title>The next generation of military robots</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1244665020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>
(Wasn't this book reviewed once before on Slashdot?)</i>
</p><p>
That book is all about the previous generation of military robots.  Take a look at the
next generation:
</p><ul>
<li>
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged\_Squad\_Support\_System" title="wikipedia.org">Legged Squad Support System.</a> [wikipedia.org]  This is the next generation of "Big Dog" - fully militarized, no more annoying two-cycle engine noise, stronger, faster, more range, about the same size.  This isn't even considered a research project; it's on the weapons deployment track.</li>
<li>
The <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/packs-of-robots-will-hunt-down.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&amp;nsref=specrt10\_head\_Pack\%20hunting\%20robots" title="newscientist.com">Multi-Robot Pursuit System.</a> [newscientist.com] Packs of robots to hunt down uncooperative humans.  Your tax dollars at work.</li>
<li>
The <a href="http://www.foster-miller.com/literature/documents/MAARS-Poster.pdf#MAARS\_poster" title="foster-miller.com">Foster-Miller  robot gun turret.</a> [foster-miller.com] This machine gun turret accessory turns any moving platform into a killbot.</li>
</ul><p>
Wait until China starts cranking out these things by the millions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Was n't this book reviewed once before on Slashdot ?
) That book is all about the previous generation of military robots .
Take a look at the next generation : The Legged Squad Support System .
[ wikipedia.org ] This is the next generation of " Big Dog " - fully militarized , no more annoying two-cycle engine noise , stronger , faster , more range , about the same size .
This is n't even considered a research project ; it 's on the weapons deployment track .
The Multi-Robot Pursuit System .
[ newscientist.com ] Packs of robots to hunt down uncooperative humans .
Your tax dollars at work .
The Foster-Miller robot gun turret .
[ foster-miller.com ] This machine gun turret accessory turns any moving platform into a killbot .
Wait until China starts cranking out these things by the millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

(Wasn't this book reviewed once before on Slashdot?
)

That book is all about the previous generation of military robots.
Take a look at the
next generation:


The Legged Squad Support System.
[wikipedia.org]  This is the next generation of "Big Dog" - fully militarized, no more annoying two-cycle engine noise, stronger, faster, more range, about the same size.
This isn't even considered a research project; it's on the weapons deployment track.
The Multi-Robot Pursuit System.
[newscientist.com] Packs of robots to hunt down uncooperative humans.
Your tax dollars at work.
The Foster-Miller  robot gun turret.
[foster-miller.com] This machine gun turret accessory turns any moving platform into a killbot.
Wait until China starts cranking out these things by the millions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</id>
	<title>Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad that there is no such thing as machine sentience, and probably won't be (at least with binary-based Turing archetechure).</p><p>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing. But... I can't help but thinking of a Star Trek episode titled "a taste of armageddon".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that there is no such thing as machine sentience , and probably wo n't be ( at least with binary-based Turing archetechure ) .As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters , I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing .
But... I ca n't help but thinking of a Star Trek episode titled " a taste of armageddon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that there is no such thing as machine sentience, and probably won't be (at least with binary-based Turing archetechure).As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.
But... I can't help but thinking of a Star Trek episode titled "a taste of armageddon".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285313</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>ZebadiahC</author>
	<datestamp>1244628540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely! I think of exactly the same thing when I think about robotics and war. Especially the the self-upgrading one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
I think of exactly the same thing when I think about robotics and war .
Especially the the self-upgrading one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
I think of exactly the same thing when I think about robotics and war.
Especially the the self-upgrading one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286815</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1244635380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the American Civil War, where the Gatling gun was first deployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the American Civil War , where the Gatling gun was first deployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the American Civil War, where the Gatling gun was first deployed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283775</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That seems to be the popular convention.</p><p>We frown on the use of white phosphorous. Several other chemical weapons. Bullet placement by snipers is intended to leave little opportunity for recovery by the target, but it took us forever to get SMK bullets approved, because it was thought to fraqment excessively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be the popular convention.We frown on the use of white phosphorous .
Several other chemical weapons .
Bullet placement by snipers is intended to leave little opportunity for recovery by the target , but it took us forever to get SMK bullets approved , because it was thought to fraqment excessively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be the popular convention.We frown on the use of white phosphorous.
Several other chemical weapons.
Bullet placement by snipers is intended to leave little opportunity for recovery by the target, but it took us forever to get SMK bullets approved, because it was thought to fraqment excessively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285593</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1244629740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another concern about using robotics, is that they have no conscious that can ask if a particular order is morally acceptable, but also legal in terms of warfare, as defined by modern war fighting states and their various treaties. This is why humans should always be in control, if only in regard to accepting the consequences of the machine's actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another concern about using robotics , is that they have no conscious that can ask if a particular order is morally acceptable , but also legal in terms of warfare , as defined by modern war fighting states and their various treaties .
This is why humans should always be in control , if only in regard to accepting the consequences of the machine 's actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another concern about using robotics, is that they have no conscious that can ask if a particular order is morally acceptable, but also legal in terms of warfare, as defined by modern war fighting states and their various treaties.
This is why humans should always be in control, if only in regard to accepting the consequences of the machine's actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28291415</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>Nocturna81</author>
	<datestamp>1244725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?</p></div><p>Short answer: yes.

I saw a show on this on the Discovery Channel. Apparently the longer the "distance" to the subject you're trying to kill the easier it gets. For example, it's harder to strangle someone with your bare hands then to do him or her in with a rock. It's also easier to stab someone with a sword then to use the rock,etc etc. Apparently our monkeybrains can blame the tool instead of our hand so to speak.

Also, if you never saw the person you're trying to kill but just had to push a button the barrier to kill just got awfully low. 'Cause you know, you're pressing a button, not really killing someone...right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool ? Short answer : yes .
I saw a show on this on the Discovery Channel .
Apparently the longer the " distance " to the subject you 're trying to kill the easier it gets .
For example , it 's harder to strangle someone with your bare hands then to do him or her in with a rock .
It 's also easier to stab someone with a sword then to use the rock,etc etc .
Apparently our monkeybrains can blame the tool instead of our hand so to speak .
Also , if you never saw the person you 're trying to kill but just had to push a button the barrier to kill just got awfully low .
'Cause you know , you 're pressing a button , not really killing someone...right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?Short answer: yes.
I saw a show on this on the Discovery Channel.
Apparently the longer the "distance" to the subject you're trying to kill the easier it gets.
For example, it's harder to strangle someone with your bare hands then to do him or her in with a rock.
It's also easier to stab someone with a sword then to use the rock,etc etc.
Apparently our monkeybrains can blame the tool instead of our hand so to speak.
Also, if you never saw the person you're trying to kill but just had to push a button the barrier to kill just got awfully low.
'Cause you know, you're pressing a button, not really killing someone...right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244664060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not in your example.  Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human's life.</p><p>I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military, and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board, I had to consider my ethical position.  The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph:  will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?</p><p>The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for, say, a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.</p><p>I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting.  I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not in your example .
Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human 's life.I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military , and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board , I had to consider my ethical position .
The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph : will the person pulling the trigger be in control , or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine ? The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for , say , a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting .
I will not build something that discharges automatically , or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable , or that will be used against civilian targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not in your example.
Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human's life.I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military, and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board, I had to consider my ethical position.
The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph:  will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for, say, a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting.
I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283765</id>
	<title>This will end up making more wars</title>
	<author>isotope23</author>
	<datestamp>1244665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War is about a political issue solved through the use of force. A limitation on wars is the perceived politcial costs among your own population. (I.E. dead soldiers mean problems at home with political support)</p><p>If you remove the human costs you also remove the politcial costs. So in essence a roboticized military will probably encourage wars....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War is about a political issue solved through the use of force .
A limitation on wars is the perceived politcial costs among your own population .
( I.E. dead soldiers mean problems at home with political support ) If you remove the human costs you also remove the politcial costs .
So in essence a roboticized military will probably encourage wars... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War is about a political issue solved through the use of force.
A limitation on wars is the perceived politcial costs among your own population.
(I.E. dead soldiers mean problems at home with political support)If you remove the human costs you also remove the politcial costs.
So in essence a roboticized military will probably encourage wars....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284047</id>
	<title>The big problem is that...</title>
	<author>nomorecwrd</author>
	<datestamp>1244666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Robots were build by men...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and they have a plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robots were build by men.. . ... and they have a plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robots were build by men...
 ... and they have a plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283311</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1244663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> draftable daughters, </p></div><p>
You're not in the US, I presume?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>draftable daughters , You 're not in the US , I presume ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> draftable daughters, 
You're not in the US, I presume?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28292103</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>digitalsolo</author>
	<datestamp>1244729220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?</p></div><p>You are clearly correct, anyone who would willingly take a life, regardless of the purpose is a madman.
<br>
<br>
Speaking in absolutes is the the best way to go, without any chance of doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he 's doing ? You are clearly correct , anyone who would willingly take a life , regardless of the purpose is a madman .
Speaking in absolutes is the the best way to go , without any chance of doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?You are clearly correct, anyone who would willingly take a life, regardless of the purpose is a madman.
Speaking in absolutes is the the best way to go, without any chance of doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290973</id>
	<title>Re:If we've learned anything from Anime</title>
	<author>anticharisma</author>
	<datestamp>1244718780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very true! eheh Or giant lizards turtles and moths.</htmltext>
<tokenext>very true !
eheh Or giant lizards turtles and moths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very true!
eheh Or giant lizards turtles and moths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28292807</id>
	<title>UAV != Robots</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1244731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A UAV is not a robot.  Your car is not a robot (unless your car is from that DARPA challenge which drives itself).</p><p>Battlebots were not robots, they were remote controlled cars with weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A UAV is not a robot .
Your car is not a robot ( unless your car is from that DARPA challenge which drives itself ) .Battlebots were not robots , they were remote controlled cars with weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A UAV is not a robot.
Your car is not a robot (unless your car is from that DARPA challenge which drives itself).Battlebots were not robots, they were remote controlled cars with weapons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289343</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1244655780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for the only intellectually honest reply to my original post.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft, and I won't develop or support it. But that's a judgment call, and I'm not saying the other judgment is wrong. All we can do is draw the lines where we will, then accept the consequences.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I respect your judgment call.  We have many employees who make similar ones, and we respect their decisions without prejudice.  We also have employees who love to blow shit up, and think anything that goes 'boom' is cool.  <i>They're</i> the ones whose judgment we question.</p><p>I've also thought about the "passing the buck" counterargument to my decision, and my response is similar to a statement you made.  One has to consider the likely uses of one's craft and decide whether its beneficial uses outweigh the misuses and potential abuses, taking into account the likelihood of each as well as their effect.  We build systems that have saved the lives of many hundreds of US soldiers, at the very least by putting fewer of them in harm's way -- but also by giving them better tactical and strategic awareness, and by allowing them to make pinpoint strikes.</p><p> If someone decides to take that system and misuse it to kill civilians or commit war crimes, the karma is theirs, not mine.  They would have done so using whatever tools were at their disposal, whether I built one of them or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for the only intellectually honest reply to my original post .
Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft , and I wo n't develop or support it .
But that 's a judgment call , and I 'm not saying the other judgment is wrong .
All we can do is draw the lines where we will , then accept the consequences .
I respect your judgment call .
We have many employees who make similar ones , and we respect their decisions without prejudice .
We also have employees who love to blow shit up , and think anything that goes 'boom ' is cool .
They 're the ones whose judgment we question.I 've also thought about the " passing the buck " counterargument to my decision , and my response is similar to a statement you made .
One has to consider the likely uses of one 's craft and decide whether its beneficial uses outweigh the misuses and potential abuses , taking into account the likelihood of each as well as their effect .
We build systems that have saved the lives of many hundreds of US soldiers , at the very least by putting fewer of them in harm 's way -- but also by giving them better tactical and strategic awareness , and by allowing them to make pinpoint strikes .
If someone decides to take that system and misuse it to kill civilians or commit war crimes , the karma is theirs , not mine .
They would have done so using whatever tools were at their disposal , whether I built one of them or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for the only intellectually honest reply to my original post.
Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft, and I won't develop or support it.
But that's a judgment call, and I'm not saying the other judgment is wrong.
All we can do is draw the lines where we will, then accept the consequences.
I respect your judgment call.
We have many employees who make similar ones, and we respect their decisions without prejudice.
We also have employees who love to blow shit up, and think anything that goes 'boom' is cool.
They're the ones whose judgment we question.I've also thought about the "passing the buck" counterargument to my decision, and my response is similar to a statement you made.
One has to consider the likely uses of one's craft and decide whether its beneficial uses outweigh the misuses and potential abuses, taking into account the likelihood of each as well as their effect.
We build systems that have saved the lives of many hundreds of US soldiers, at the very least by putting fewer of them in harm's way -- but also by giving them better tactical and strategic awareness, and by allowing them to make pinpoint strikes.
If someone decides to take that system and misuse it to kill civilians or commit war crimes, the karma is theirs, not mine.
They would have done so using whatever tools were at their disposal, whether I built one of them or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28291519</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really are quite a petty, pathetic little species, when all is said and done. Can't blame any aliens, if they exist and manage to find us, from putting us out of our misery, or anyone else's for that matter!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really are quite a petty , pathetic little species , when all is said and done .
Ca n't blame any aliens , if they exist and manage to find us , from putting us out of our misery , or anyone else 's for that matter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really are quite a petty, pathetic little species, when all is said and done.
Can't blame any aliens, if they exist and manage to find us, from putting us out of our misery, or anyone else's for that matter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1244664720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.</i></p><p>I'm not sure I agree.  While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify... after all, the populist tide didn't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters , I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.I 'm not sure I agree .
While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties , it would also make pointless , bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace , and far easier to justify... after all , the populist tide did n't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.I'm not sure I agree.
While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify... after all, the populist tide didn't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285523</id>
	<title>Your duty is clear...</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1244629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.<br>They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall<br>mountain.  In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by<br>small robots.  And as you go forth today remember always your duty is<br>clear:  To build and maintain those robots.  Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.They will be fought in space , or possibly on top of a very tallmountain .
In either case , most of the actual fighting will be done bysmall robots .
And as you go forth today remember always your duty isclear : To build and maintain those robots .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tallmountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done bysmall robots.
And as you go forth today remember always your duty isclear:  To build and maintain those robots.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284295</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1244624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify...</p></div><p>With robot soldiers, there wouldn't be quite so many "bloody wars" though, would there?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties , it would also make pointless , bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace , and far easier to justify...With robot soldiers , there would n't be quite so many " bloody wars " though , would there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify...With robot soldiers, there wouldn't be quite so many "bloody wars" though, would there?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a flip side to pulling humans farther back from the killing.  While yes, you don't have to put a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger physically and this might cause detachment, consider the much more common scenario.  We tend to sensationalize when soldiers go nuts and kill civilians needlessly.  What we miss is that these incidents are very very rare and account for only the thinest fraction of civilian casualties.  Far more often what happens when civilians die is that a small squad of men take fire from a building and shoot up the building to kill the bad guys inside, killing innocent civilians in the process.  Most armies, but especially democratic armies, are extremely casualty adverse.  The result is that the doctrine they fight with generally employees extreme self defense measures.</p><p>When a square of men get caught flat footed and ambushed they tend to unload massive amounts of firepower to save themselves.  Rules of engagement be damned, most people are unhappy about being shot dead and will do just about anything to avoid it.  Close young comrades pumped up on adrenaline and armed with enough firepower to level a small city watching each other die make really shitty moralist.  You don't need to see the world from a camera lens to dehumanize people, you just need to see your buddy get shot next to you and know that the surrounding civilians offered up no warning and are probably harboring the people that shot your friend.  At that point, you become a lot less concerned about collateral damage when you try and defend your life and the life of your fellows.</p><p>Robotics offers up an alternative.  When robots are doing the dying and fighting you are pulling men out of a dangerous situation.  You remove the kill or be killed mentality.  You are no longer bonded by a sense of kinship between the people in your square.  If one robot in a square of robot "dies" you just turn off the screens and go have a coffee.  On top of that, it is no longer a dozen guys and one low level leader making life and death decisions.  Hell, you could station a military lawyer  right next to a drone operator.  Everything is recorded such that if you break the rules of engagement you get your ass kicked.  A bunch of guys sitting in a room with computers with their every move recorded and superiors always right there to give direction is pretty much the polar opposite of a dozen guys surrounded by bad guys with their lives on the line and their every moral decision weighed against whether or not they live or die.</p><p>Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation.  Whatever extra fire power it adds is meaningless.  If killing civilians is what you want, we don't need robots to do it.  The US could have killed every living thing in Iraq if that had been its intention.  What it really wants is to pull the lives out of the equation not because it makes the extermination of the populace easier, but because it makes deciding to not fight to save a few easily swayed civilians drastically easier.</p><p>The concerns that it might make war too easy are certainly valid, but if you just want to blow stuff up we have already come and gone from that point.  The US can bomb pretty much any non-first world nation with complete impunity with the exception of China.  The far more profound effect drones are going to have is when they start taking the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a flip side to pulling humans farther back from the killing .
While yes , you do n't have to put a gun in someone 's face and pull the trigger physically and this might cause detachment , consider the much more common scenario .
We tend to sensationalize when soldiers go nuts and kill civilians needlessly .
What we miss is that these incidents are very very rare and account for only the thinest fraction of civilian casualties .
Far more often what happens when civilians die is that a small squad of men take fire from a building and shoot up the building to kill the bad guys inside , killing innocent civilians in the process .
Most armies , but especially democratic armies , are extremely casualty adverse .
The result is that the doctrine they fight with generally employees extreme self defense measures.When a square of men get caught flat footed and ambushed they tend to unload massive amounts of firepower to save themselves .
Rules of engagement be damned , most people are unhappy about being shot dead and will do just about anything to avoid it .
Close young comrades pumped up on adrenaline and armed with enough firepower to level a small city watching each other die make really shitty moralist .
You do n't need to see the world from a camera lens to dehumanize people , you just need to see your buddy get shot next to you and know that the surrounding civilians offered up no warning and are probably harboring the people that shot your friend .
At that point , you become a lot less concerned about collateral damage when you try and defend your life and the life of your fellows.Robotics offers up an alternative .
When robots are doing the dying and fighting you are pulling men out of a dangerous situation .
You remove the kill or be killed mentality .
You are no longer bonded by a sense of kinship between the people in your square .
If one robot in a square of robot " dies " you just turn off the screens and go have a coffee .
On top of that , it is no longer a dozen guys and one low level leader making life and death decisions .
Hell , you could station a military lawyer right next to a drone operator .
Everything is recorded such that if you break the rules of engagement you get your ass kicked .
A bunch of guys sitting in a room with computers with their every move recorded and superiors always right there to give direction is pretty much the polar opposite of a dozen guys surrounded by bad guys with their lives on the line and their every moral decision weighed against whether or not they live or die.Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation .
Whatever extra fire power it adds is meaningless .
If killing civilians is what you want , we do n't need robots to do it .
The US could have killed every living thing in Iraq if that had been its intention .
What it really wants is to pull the lives out of the equation not because it makes the extermination of the populace easier , but because it makes deciding to not fight to save a few easily swayed civilians drastically easier.The concerns that it might make war too easy are certainly valid , but if you just want to blow stuff up we have already come and gone from that point .
The US can bomb pretty much any non-first world nation with complete impunity with the exception of China .
The far more profound effect drones are going to have is when they start taking the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a flip side to pulling humans farther back from the killing.
While yes, you don't have to put a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger physically and this might cause detachment, consider the much more common scenario.
We tend to sensationalize when soldiers go nuts and kill civilians needlessly.
What we miss is that these incidents are very very rare and account for only the thinest fraction of civilian casualties.
Far more often what happens when civilians die is that a small squad of men take fire from a building and shoot up the building to kill the bad guys inside, killing innocent civilians in the process.
Most armies, but especially democratic armies, are extremely casualty adverse.
The result is that the doctrine they fight with generally employees extreme self defense measures.When a square of men get caught flat footed and ambushed they tend to unload massive amounts of firepower to save themselves.
Rules of engagement be damned, most people are unhappy about being shot dead and will do just about anything to avoid it.
Close young comrades pumped up on adrenaline and armed with enough firepower to level a small city watching each other die make really shitty moralist.
You don't need to see the world from a camera lens to dehumanize people, you just need to see your buddy get shot next to you and know that the surrounding civilians offered up no warning and are probably harboring the people that shot your friend.
At that point, you become a lot less concerned about collateral damage when you try and defend your life and the life of your fellows.Robotics offers up an alternative.
When robots are doing the dying and fighting you are pulling men out of a dangerous situation.
You remove the kill or be killed mentality.
You are no longer bonded by a sense of kinship between the people in your square.
If one robot in a square of robot "dies" you just turn off the screens and go have a coffee.
On top of that, it is no longer a dozen guys and one low level leader making life and death decisions.
Hell, you could station a military lawyer  right next to a drone operator.
Everything is recorded such that if you break the rules of engagement you get your ass kicked.
A bunch of guys sitting in a room with computers with their every move recorded and superiors always right there to give direction is pretty much the polar opposite of a dozen guys surrounded by bad guys with their lives on the line and their every moral decision weighed against whether or not they live or die.Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation.
Whatever extra fire power it adds is meaningless.
If killing civilians is what you want, we don't need robots to do it.
The US could have killed every living thing in Iraq if that had been its intention.
What it really wants is to pull the lives out of the equation not because it makes the extermination of the populace easier, but because it makes deciding to not fight to save a few easily swayed civilians drastically easier.The concerns that it might make war too easy are certainly valid, but if you just want to blow stuff up we have already come and gone from that point.
The US can bomb pretty much any non-first world nation with complete impunity with the exception of China.
The far more profound effect drones are going to have is when they start taking the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283877</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they reinstitute the draft they will. Remember, they passed laws against discriminating on the basis of sex. There are women on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they reinstitute the draft they will .
Remember , they passed laws against discriminating on the basis of sex .
There are women on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they reinstitute the draft they will.
Remember, they passed laws against discriminating on the basis of sex.
There are women on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</id>
	<title>rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>internerdj</author>
	<datestamp>1244663400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285639</id>
	<title>FPS culture</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1244629920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. . .</p><p>Have you ever walked through a convention center filled with FPS gamers?  I wouldn't trust a single one of those hooting retards with real firepower.  Not with the kind of neural patterning they spend <i>thousands</i> of hours cementing into place, these days, pretty much from childhood.</p><p>It's not just the time spent in front of the screen. . , it's the time NOT spent engaged in real, face to face human dynamics.</p><p>Your points, while logical in isolation, don't take video game culture into account.  I would guess that many of the troops who would be remotely directing the future combat robot would be drawn from the above mentioned demographic.  And that's one huge bunch of socially disconnected apes.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
. .Have you ever walked through a convention center filled with FPS gamers ?
I would n't trust a single one of those hooting retards with real firepower .
Not with the kind of neural patterning they spend thousands of hours cementing into place , these days , pretty much from childhood.It 's not just the time spent in front of the screen .
. , it 's the time NOT spent engaged in real , face to face human dynamics.Your points , while logical in isolation , do n't take video game culture into account .
I would guess that many of the troops who would be remotely directing the future combat robot would be drawn from the above mentioned demographic .
And that 's one huge bunch of socially disconnected apes.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
. .Have you ever walked through a convention center filled with FPS gamers?
I wouldn't trust a single one of those hooting retards with real firepower.
Not with the kind of neural patterning they spend thousands of hours cementing into place, these days, pretty much from childhood.It's not just the time spent in front of the screen.
. , it's the time NOT spent engaged in real, face to face human dynamics.Your points, while logical in isolation, don't take video game culture into account.
I would guess that many of the troops who would be remotely directing the future combat robot would be drawn from the above mentioned demographic.
And that's one huge bunch of socially disconnected apes.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285311</id>
	<title>For now, robots are an advantage</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1244628540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens when the rest of the world has nasty-bots that can take on our nasty-bots? Either they'll start targeting the makers of the nasty-bots (the factories) and the controllers of the nasty-bots (hardenened bunkers---hmmm...I wonder which will be the easier target), or they'll realize that they're just letting their toys battle and they'd best learn to settle their conflicts by playing a few rounds of Pokemon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when the rest of the world has nasty-bots that can take on our nasty-bots ?
Either they 'll start targeting the makers of the nasty-bots ( the factories ) and the controllers of the nasty-bots ( hardenened bunkers---hmmm...I wonder which will be the easier target ) , or they 'll realize that they 're just letting their toys battle and they 'd best learn to settle their conflicts by playing a few rounds of Pokemon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when the rest of the world has nasty-bots that can take on our nasty-bots?
Either they'll start targeting the makers of the nasty-bots (the factories) and the controllers of the nasty-bots (hardenened bunkers---hmmm...I wonder which will be the easier target), or they'll realize that they're just letting their toys battle and they'd best learn to settle their conflicts by playing a few rounds of Pokemon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284443</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1244625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...I had to consider my ethical position...</p></div><p>
C'mon, you never had such thing as ethical position. If you did, you wouldn't even be there in the first place. One thing leads to the other and you ended up making killing drones, so what. A lot of people do much damage to others without even knowing (bank employees?). Just be honest about it, and say it was good money...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting.</p></div><p>So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I had to consider my ethical position.. . C'mon , you never had such thing as ethical position .
If you did , you would n't even be there in the first place .
One thing leads to the other and you ended up making killing drones , so what .
A lot of people do much damage to others without even knowing ( bank employees ? ) .
Just be honest about it , and say it was good money...I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting.So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he 's doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...I had to consider my ethical position...
C'mon, you never had such thing as ethical position.
If you did, you wouldn't even be there in the first place.
One thing leads to the other and you ended up making killing drones, so what.
A lot of people do much damage to others without even knowing (bank employees?).
Just be honest about it, and say it was good money...I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting.So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284847</id>
	<title>Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>chaodyn</author>
	<datestamp>1244626620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists, or a wedding party as the case may be, at very little political risk, since there is no pilot to be captured or killed.  </p></div><p>We've had this technology for years - it's called cruise missiles.  But instead of wedding parties they sometimes target aspirin factories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists , or a wedding party as the case may be , at very little political risk , since there is no pilot to be captured or killed .
We 've had this technology for years - it 's called cruise missiles .
But instead of wedding parties they sometimes target aspirin factories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists, or a wedding party as the case may be, at very little political risk, since there is no pilot to be captured or killed.
We've had this technology for years - it's called cruise missiles.
But instead of wedding parties they sometimes target aspirin factories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283469</id>
	<title>Maybe not, but perception sure does.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1244664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If America could go forth and kill people at little cost in lives or money using robots, do you think Americans would care as much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If America could go forth and kill people at little cost in lives or money using robots , do you think Americans would care as much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If America could go forth and kill people at little cost in lives or money using robots, do you think Americans would care as much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288401</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1244646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.  But a better tool makes killing people a lot easier.  And sending a robot to war is a hell of a lot easier than sending a man.  So you can bet there will be a lot more killing.  Fewer US troops dying, but a lot more brown people.  But they don't really count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
But a better tool makes killing people a lot easier .
And sending a robot to war is a hell of a lot easier than sending a man .
So you can bet there will be a lot more killing .
Fewer US troops dying , but a lot more brown people .
But they do n't really count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
But a better tool makes killing people a lot easier.
And sending a robot to war is a hell of a lot easier than sending a man.
So you can bet there will be a lot more killing.
Fewer US troops dying, but a lot more brown people.
But they don't really count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286439</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>FencingLion</author>
	<datestamp>1244633280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daughters are draftable now? Last I heard, only men were registered for selective service in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daughters are draftable now ?
Last I heard , only men were registered for selective service in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daughters are draftable now?
Last I heard, only men were registered for selective service in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28299907</id>
	<title>If other countries use these in the US</title>
	<author>hamanaka</author>
	<datestamp>1244713500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If another country had a predator unmanned aircraft fly over my house, which is highly unlikely since NORAD would most likely shoot it down before it could get anywhere near land.  But still if an unmanned foreign military aircraft flew over my house... in California, it would not be flying much longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If another country had a predator unmanned aircraft fly over my house , which is highly unlikely since NORAD would most likely shoot it down before it could get anywhere near land .
But still if an unmanned foreign military aircraft flew over my house... in California , it would not be flying much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If another country had a predator unmanned aircraft fly over my house, which is highly unlikely since NORAD would most likely shoot it down before it could get anywhere near land.
But still if an unmanned foreign military aircraft flew over my house... in California, it would not be flying much longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284021</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was the point of the Star Trek reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was the point of the Star Trek reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was the point of the Star Trek reference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283295</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>stoolpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1244663700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say yes.  There are issues that arise with more complicated killing machines that don't exist in the rock equation.  Though I would say even with the rock, there are many complicated questions because human activity never happens in a vacuum.  But as the chain of events and number of people involved in the taking of a life grows then new considerations come into the mix.  For example with the rock - there is no programmer back home with some level of complicity in the use of the rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say yes .
There are issues that arise with more complicated killing machines that do n't exist in the rock equation .
Though I would say even with the rock , there are many complicated questions because human activity never happens in a vacuum .
But as the chain of events and number of people involved in the taking of a life grows then new considerations come into the mix .
For example with the rock - there is no programmer back home with some level of complicity in the use of the rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say yes.
There are issues that arise with more complicated killing machines that don't exist in the rock equation.
Though I would say even with the rock, there are many complicated questions because human activity never happens in a vacuum.
But as the chain of events and number of people involved in the taking of a life grows then new considerations come into the mix.
For example with the rock - there is no programmer back home with some level of complicity in the use of the rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286465</id>
	<title>Cf Strategic Computing Initiative</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1244633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting to compare this stuff with its first incarnation - or perhaps the seed from which it grew - the infamous 1980s <a href="http://books.google.com/books/mitpress?id=eD4taFgeTUYC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs\_ViewAPI#PPP1,M1" title="google.com">Strategic Computing Initiative</a> [google.com].</p><p>Back in 1983, the DoD was asking for natural language, speech, machine vision, autonomous vehicles, and automated battlefield management systems to happen on precise schedules within ten years, which would make both the original Terminator movie and WarGames into fairly conservative extrapolations of sober science of the era. It didn't happen that fast, which led to the AI Winter and the downfall of Lisp and the rise of the lolintertubes instead - but it looks like parts of that 'autonomous battlefield robot' vision still *are* happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting to compare this stuff with its first incarnation - or perhaps the seed from which it grew - the infamous 1980s Strategic Computing Initiative [ google.com ] .Back in 1983 , the DoD was asking for natural language , speech , machine vision , autonomous vehicles , and automated battlefield management systems to happen on precise schedules within ten years , which would make both the original Terminator movie and WarGames into fairly conservative extrapolations of sober science of the era .
It did n't happen that fast , which led to the AI Winter and the downfall of Lisp and the rise of the lolintertubes instead - but it looks like parts of that 'autonomous battlefield robot ' vision still * are * happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting to compare this stuff with its first incarnation - or perhaps the seed from which it grew - the infamous 1980s Strategic Computing Initiative [google.com].Back in 1983, the DoD was asking for natural language, speech, machine vision, autonomous vehicles, and automated battlefield management systems to happen on precise schedules within ten years, which would make both the original Terminator movie and WarGames into fairly conservative extrapolations of sober science of the era.
It didn't happen that fast, which led to the AI Winter and the downfall of Lisp and the rise of the lolintertubes instead - but it looks like parts of that 'autonomous battlefield robot' vision still *are* happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284251</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1244667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To me, it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war. If you are going to fight a war, the least you can do is actually do the fighting.</p> </div><p>No, the point of fighting a war is to win. You do everything you have to, in order to assure victory. If that means fighting with remote controlled robots, that's what you do to gain the advantage. You use the means at your disposal to fight, because that's what the other guy is doing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The mentality behind it seems to be:"I believe in this enough to kill others, but I don't want to sacrifice my own life for it."</p> </div><p>"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."<br>--George S. Patton</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war .
If you are going to fight a war , the least you can do is actually do the fighting .
No , the point of fighting a war is to win .
You do everything you have to , in order to assure victory .
If that means fighting with remote controlled robots , that 's what you do to gain the advantage .
You use the means at your disposal to fight , because that 's what the other guy is doing.The mentality behind it seems to be : " I believe in this enough to kill others , but I do n't want to sacrifice my own life for it .
" " No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country .
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country .
" --George S. Patton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war.
If you are going to fight a war, the least you can do is actually do the fighting.
No, the point of fighting a war is to win.
You do everything you have to, in order to assure victory.
If that means fighting with remote controlled robots, that's what you do to gain the advantage.
You use the means at your disposal to fight, because that's what the other guy is doing.The mentality behind it seems to be:"I believe in this enough to kill others, but I don't want to sacrifice my own life for it.
" "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
"--George S. Patton
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283715</id>
	<title>Apropo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Wired For War".  That's about Americans, or people in general?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wired For War " .
That 's about Americans , or people in general ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Wired For War".
That's about Americans, or people in general?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1244666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.</p></div><p>If the "aggressor" has no chance of injury or death, what's the point in resisting?</p><p>In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight. And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.If the " aggressor " has no chance of injury or death , what 's the point in resisting ? In the face of overwhelming military superiority ( a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots , operated by people safely located thousands of miles away ) , there is no fight .
And , with no fight , there are no casualties on either side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.If the "aggressor" has no chance of injury or death, what's the point in resisting?In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight.
And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284273</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1244624400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph:  will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?</p></div><p>Unfortunately, in cases where there is ambiguity or uncertainty about what is being shot at, most people will assume what they are comfortable to believe.  So, as a hypothetical example, I would be pretty uncomfortable about a system that had a radar and a weapon on board for use through fog.  Because of the way information is compartmentalized for security reasons, and people protect themselves own team by covering up embarrassing mistakes, I don't think it very likely that the use of such a weapon would be governed responsibly.</p><p>A lot of people pretend that if you make and sell a gun, you aren't responsible for how people use it.  I think there is some truth to that.  But if you already know something about the psychology of the institutions that use it, then that adds quite a lot of responsibility.</p><p>Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft, and I won't develop or support it.  But that's a judgment call, and I'm not saying the other judgment is wrong.  All we can do is draw the lines where we will, then accept the consequences.</p><p>I would also be a lot happier if the main purpose of the weapons was to defend our countries against invasion.  But I'm not entirely sure that's what's happening.  For the most part, terrorists that attack westerners get their money from governments that get their money from westerners.  It looks to me like the whole dynamic has has more to do with certain people gaining and hanging onto power and wealth than anything else.  And if we really cared about maintaining the strength and integrity of our nations, we would worry more about border control and what we're doing to our economies.  But again, its complicated, and that's all judgment calls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph : will the person pulling the trigger be in control , or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine ? Unfortunately , in cases where there is ambiguity or uncertainty about what is being shot at , most people will assume what they are comfortable to believe .
So , as a hypothetical example , I would be pretty uncomfortable about a system that had a radar and a weapon on board for use through fog .
Because of the way information is compartmentalized for security reasons , and people protect themselves own team by covering up embarrassing mistakes , I do n't think it very likely that the use of such a weapon would be governed responsibly.A lot of people pretend that if you make and sell a gun , you are n't responsible for how people use it .
I think there is some truth to that .
But if you already know something about the psychology of the institutions that use it , then that adds quite a lot of responsibility.Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft , and I wo n't develop or support it .
But that 's a judgment call , and I 'm not saying the other judgment is wrong .
All we can do is draw the lines where we will , then accept the consequences.I would also be a lot happier if the main purpose of the weapons was to defend our countries against invasion .
But I 'm not entirely sure that 's what 's happening .
For the most part , terrorists that attack westerners get their money from governments that get their money from westerners .
It looks to me like the whole dynamic has has more to do with certain people gaining and hanging onto power and wealth than anything else .
And if we really cared about maintaining the strength and integrity of our nations , we would worry more about border control and what we 're doing to our economies .
But again , its complicated , and that 's all judgment calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph:  will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?Unfortunately, in cases where there is ambiguity or uncertainty about what is being shot at, most people will assume what they are comfortable to believe.
So, as a hypothetical example, I would be pretty uncomfortable about a system that had a radar and a weapon on board for use through fog.
Because of the way information is compartmentalized for security reasons, and people protect themselves own team by covering up embarrassing mistakes, I don't think it very likely that the use of such a weapon would be governed responsibly.A lot of people pretend that if you make and sell a gun, you aren't responsible for how people use it.
I think there is some truth to that.
But if you already know something about the psychology of the institutions that use it, then that adds quite a lot of responsibility.Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft, and I won't develop or support it.
But that's a judgment call, and I'm not saying the other judgment is wrong.
All we can do is draw the lines where we will, then accept the consequences.I would also be a lot happier if the main purpose of the weapons was to defend our countries against invasion.
But I'm not entirely sure that's what's happening.
For the most part, terrorists that attack westerners get their money from governments that get their money from westerners.
It looks to me like the whole dynamic has has more to do with certain people gaining and hanging onto power and wealth than anything else.
And if we really cared about maintaining the strength and integrity of our nations, we would worry more about border control and what we're doing to our economies.
But again, its complicated, and that's all judgment calls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759</id>
	<title>At all skynet references:</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1244665500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on boys (and girl?), this is about remote controlled ucav's mostly, we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system, let alone an abstracting intelligent one.<br><br>Not back to topic: robotics aided &lt;strike&gt;murder&lt;/strike&gt; homeland defence is an interesting technology, but form a law standpoint the question is still: who pressed the button(s).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on boys ( and girl ?
) , this is about remote controlled ucav 's mostly , we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system , let alone an abstracting intelligent one.Not back to topic : robotics aided murder homeland defence is an interesting technology , but form a law standpoint the question is still : who pressed the button ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on boys (and girl?
), this is about remote controlled ucav's mostly, we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system, let alone an abstracting intelligent one.Not back to topic: robotics aided murder homeland defence is an interesting technology, but form a law standpoint the question is still: who pressed the button(s).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287807</id>
	<title>"Flight Consoles in the US"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United States</p></div><p>I'm sure this has been addressed in previous articles, but I'm surprised they get acceptable performance with the latency that entails. I have a hard enough time steering my dwarf rogue around Northrend when I'm at 400ms ping, I'd hate to be flying multi-million dollar killing machines under those conditions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United StatesI 'm sure this has been addressed in previous articles , but I 'm surprised they get acceptable performance with the latency that entails .
I have a hard enough time steering my dwarf rogue around Northrend when I 'm at 400ms ping , I 'd hate to be flying multi-million dollar killing machines under those conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United StatesI'm sure this has been addressed in previous articles, but I'm surprised they get acceptable performance with the latency that entails.
I have a hard enough time steering my dwarf rogue around Northrend when I'm at 400ms ping, I'd hate to be flying multi-million dollar killing machines under those conditions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283937</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with you, Sarge. But there are wedding parties bombed by manned planes, too. There was a fiasco last year (maybe it was the year before) where a National Guard unit from here in Springfield bombed a squad of Canadian soldiers. You of all people should know that war is never without accident, and in war, accidents are horrible.</p><p>It seems that a predator, remotely manned and flying low, has less of a chance of causing colatteral damage than a manned plane traveling at several thousand feet up.</p><p>And I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter. Bush II proved me wrong, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with you , Sarge .
But there are wedding parties bombed by manned planes , too .
There was a fiasco last year ( maybe it was the year before ) where a National Guard unit from here in Springfield bombed a squad of Canadian soldiers .
You of all people should know that war is never without accident , and in war , accidents are horrible.It seems that a predator , remotely manned and flying low , has less of a chance of causing colatteral damage than a manned plane traveling at several thousand feet up.And I never thought I 'd see a worse President than Carter .
Bush II proved me wrong , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with you, Sarge.
But there are wedding parties bombed by manned planes, too.
There was a fiasco last year (maybe it was the year before) where a National Guard unit from here in Springfield bombed a squad of Canadian soldiers.
You of all people should know that war is never without accident, and in war, accidents are horrible.It seems that a predator, remotely manned and flying low, has less of a chance of causing colatteral damage than a manned plane traveling at several thousand feet up.And I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter.
Bush II proved me wrong, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290317</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>defireman</author>
	<datestamp>1244752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, your argument is that the worse-off side should just lie down and take whatever crap their aggressors dictate? <br> <br>

That is one of the most stupid statements I've seen posted. I am sure that many people in Iraq disagrees with you right now. They are simply going to continue to think of new methods to destroy the oh-so-expensive toys that the aggressors are fielding. The surest way to not have casualties is not start a war in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , your argument is that the worse-off side should just lie down and take whatever crap their aggressors dictate ?
That is one of the most stupid statements I 've seen posted .
I am sure that many people in Iraq disagrees with you right now .
They are simply going to continue to think of new methods to destroy the oh-so-expensive toys that the aggressors are fielding .
The surest way to not have casualties is not start a war in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, your argument is that the worse-off side should just lie down and take whatever crap their aggressors dictate?
That is one of the most stupid statements I've seen posted.
I am sure that many people in Iraq disagrees with you right now.
They are simply going to continue to think of new methods to destroy the oh-so-expensive toys that the aggressors are fielding.
The surest way to not have casualties is not start a war in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284321</id>
	<title>Latency</title>
	<author>Ender Wiggin 77</author>
	<datestamp>1244624580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do they handle the latency involved in getting signals from planes in Iraq to control consoles (and back again)? I would think something close to real-time would be needed to actually fly, land, aim missiles, etc. Bouncing off satellites would be a 100ms round-trip would it not?
<p>

If the camera on the plane beams that video to the US, then a pilot reacts to whatever obstacle he's about to fly into and his control signals work their way back to the plane, while the plane is moving at 100's of mile an hour, I would expect some issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they handle the latency involved in getting signals from planes in Iraq to control consoles ( and back again ) ?
I would think something close to real-time would be needed to actually fly , land , aim missiles , etc .
Bouncing off satellites would be a 100ms round-trip would it not ?
If the camera on the plane beams that video to the US , then a pilot reacts to whatever obstacle he 's about to fly into and his control signals work their way back to the plane , while the plane is moving at 100 's of mile an hour , I would expect some issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they handle the latency involved in getting signals from planes in Iraq to control consoles (and back again)?
I would think something close to real-time would be needed to actually fly, land, aim missiles, etc.
Bouncing off satellites would be a 100ms round-trip would it not?
If the camera on the plane beams that video to the US, then a pilot reacts to whatever obstacle he's about to fly into and his control signals work their way back to the plane, while the plane is moving at 100's of mile an hour, I would expect some issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285841</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters</p></div><p>Draftable daughters?</p><p>Right, because women have to sign up for the Selective Service System.</p><p>I love how women plead for equality on so many of the things that benefit them but none of the undesirable responsibilities, like alimony (more women than men receive it), the draft, child support, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughtersDraftable daughters ? Right , because women have to sign up for the Selective Service System.I love how women plead for equality on so many of the things that benefit them but none of the undesirable responsibilities , like alimony ( more women than men receive it ) , the draft , child support , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughtersDraftable daughters?Right, because women have to sign up for the Selective Service System.I love how women plead for equality on so many of the things that benefit them but none of the undesirable responsibilities, like alimony (more women than men receive it), the draft, child support, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284139</id>
	<title>Re:At all skynet references:</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1244667060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system"</p><p>I urge you to research the TALON/SWORDS robot and weapons platform.  I was one of the engineers who worked on prototyping autonomous guidance and navigation for it using LIDAR, SONAR, GPS, and INS.  In the six months or so we spent coming up with a proof-of-concept system, we had a TALON climbing/descending stairs and navigating around obstacles by itself.  This was late 2005 to mid 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system " I urge you to research the TALON/SWORDS robot and weapons platform .
I was one of the engineers who worked on prototyping autonomous guidance and navigation for it using LIDAR , SONAR , GPS , and INS .
In the six months or so we spent coming up with a proof-of-concept system , we had a TALON climbing/descending stairs and navigating around obstacles by itself .
This was late 2005 to mid 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we are nowhere near to build even a dumb robot / computer system"I urge you to research the TALON/SWORDS robot and weapons platform.
I was one of the engineers who worked on prototyping autonomous guidance and navigation for it using LIDAR, SONAR, GPS, and INS.
In the six months or so we spent coming up with a proof-of-concept system, we had a TALON climbing/descending stairs and navigating around obstacles by itself.
This was late 2005 to mid 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285831</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately FCS is based on Linux</title>
	<author>stinkytoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi, I am an active duty US Marine who works with UAVs.

The Shadow and the Predator are both controlled by Solaris workstations, running CDE as their desktop environment. The operators have no difficulty learning the system and never have to open a CLI. In fact, me as a tech, really never have to either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I am an active duty US Marine who works with UAVs .
The Shadow and the Predator are both controlled by Solaris workstations , running CDE as their desktop environment .
The operators have no difficulty learning the system and never have to open a CLI .
In fact , me as a tech , really never have to either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I am an active duty US Marine who works with UAVs.
The Shadow and the Predator are both controlled by Solaris workstations, running CDE as their desktop environment.
The operators have no difficulty learning the system and never have to open a CLI.
In fact, me as a tech, really never have to either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821</id>
	<title>like cross-bows in the middle ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244665740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see the introduction of robotic weapons to be a dangerous and ominous development.  When you kill someone face to face, you experience it more directly, and you put yourself more directly at risk.  When you use tools to kill from a distance, the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny.  Was aerial bombing of cities in WW II a good development?  The consensus seems to be that it was, but I'm not sure.  And at least then there were men in the aircraft.  Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists, or a wedding party as the case may be, at very little political risk, since there is no pilot to be captured or killed.  And the scale of this sort of thing will become much, much larger.  Of course a lot of such developments are inevitable, particularly once the genie is out of the bottle, but we do have some ability to change our trajectory a little bit.</p><p>The Skynet disaster won't happen, because computers aren't even remotely close to dangerous intelligence.  But something similar could happen with men at the helm, using the technology to maintain their lifestyle at everyone else's expense.  How long before some really strong countries start using nuclear weapons and unmanned surveillance and delivery systems to extort wealth from less powerful nations?  I mean more overtly than happens currently?  I think it will happen, not far in the future probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the introduction of robotic weapons to be a dangerous and ominous development .
When you kill someone face to face , you experience it more directly , and you put yourself more directly at risk .
When you use tools to kill from a distance , the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny .
Was aerial bombing of cities in WW II a good development ?
The consensus seems to be that it was , but I 'm not sure .
And at least then there were men in the aircraft .
Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists , or a wedding party as the case may be , at very little political risk , since there is no pilot to be captured or killed .
And the scale of this sort of thing will become much , much larger .
Of course a lot of such developments are inevitable , particularly once the genie is out of the bottle , but we do have some ability to change our trajectory a little bit.The Skynet disaster wo n't happen , because computers are n't even remotely close to dangerous intelligence .
But something similar could happen with men at the helm , using the technology to maintain their lifestyle at everyone else 's expense .
How long before some really strong countries start using nuclear weapons and unmanned surveillance and delivery systems to extort wealth from less powerful nations ?
I mean more overtly than happens currently ?
I think it will happen , not far in the future probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the introduction of robotic weapons to be a dangerous and ominous development.
When you kill someone face to face, you experience it more directly, and you put yourself more directly at risk.
When you use tools to kill from a distance, the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny.
Was aerial bombing of cities in WW II a good development?
The consensus seems to be that it was, but I'm not sure.
And at least then there were men in the aircraft.
Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists, or a wedding party as the case may be, at very little political risk, since there is no pilot to be captured or killed.
And the scale of this sort of thing will become much, much larger.
Of course a lot of such developments are inevitable, particularly once the genie is out of the bottle, but we do have some ability to change our trajectory a little bit.The Skynet disaster won't happen, because computers aren't even remotely close to dangerous intelligence.
But something similar could happen with men at the helm, using the technology to maintain their lifestyle at everyone else's expense.
How long before some really strong countries start using nuclear weapons and unmanned surveillance and delivery systems to extort wealth from less powerful nations?
I mean more overtly than happens currently?
I think it will happen, not far in the future probably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283587</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>I don't know what sort of approval drone operators need before engaging a target, but things are fairly cut and dry on the ground. I'd have rather watched robots roll into Fallujah than do it myself, and the ROE was simple enough it could have been easily programmed.</p><p>I doubt the outcome, in terms of casualities, would have been much different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? I do n't know what sort of approval drone operators need before engaging a target , but things are fairly cut and dry on the ground .
I 'd have rather watched robots roll into Fallujah than do it myself , and the ROE was simple enough it could have been easily programmed.I doubt the outcome , in terms of casualities , would have been much different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?I don't know what sort of approval drone operators need before engaging a target, but things are fairly cut and dry on the ground.
I'd have rather watched robots roll into Fallujah than do it myself, and the ROE was simple enough it could have been easily programmed.I doubt the outcome, in terms of casualities, would have been much different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289019</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1244652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave (read his memoirs for the details)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Now, now. I enjoy a good Yank bash as much as the next bloke but to be fair, it was the Pakistanis that funnelled the majority of the weapons and supplies to the more radical Mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan did this so it would have a more friendly Islamic state when the Soviets were finally defated.<br> <br>

Now if we are talking about Iran and the Shah, then the US is entirely to blame (OK, OK, the UK as well).<br> <br>

Mujahadeen is just the Arabic word for irregular soldiers despite its religious connotations, think of partisans and guerrilla forces. Even the non-religious fighters in Afghanistan were Mujahadeen.<br> <br>

I tried Afghani food once in KL, it was quite nice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave ( read his memoirs for the details ) Now , now .
I enjoy a good Yank bash as much as the next bloke but to be fair , it was the Pakistanis that funnelled the majority of the weapons and supplies to the more radical Mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan .
Pakistan did this so it would have a more friendly Islamic state when the Soviets were finally defated .
Now if we are talking about Iran and the Shah , then the US is entirely to blame ( OK , OK , the UK as well ) .
Mujahadeen is just the Arabic word for irregular soldiers despite its religious connotations , think of partisans and guerrilla forces .
Even the non-religious fighters in Afghanistan were Mujahadeen .
I tried Afghani food once in KL , it was quite nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave (read his memoirs for the details)

Now, now.
I enjoy a good Yank bash as much as the next bloke but to be fair, it was the Pakistanis that funnelled the majority of the weapons and supplies to the more radical Mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Pakistan did this so it would have a more friendly Islamic state when the Soviets were finally defated.
Now if we are talking about Iran and the Shah, then the US is entirely to blame (OK, OK, the UK as well).
Mujahadeen is just the Arabic word for irregular soldiers despite its religious connotations, think of partisans and guerrilla forces.
Even the non-religious fighters in Afghanistan were Mujahadeen.
I tried Afghani food once in KL, it was quite nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28332137</id>
	<title>collateral damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if we could only have robots living in the target areas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if we could only have robots living in the target areas .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if we could only have robots living in the target areas ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284819</id>
	<title>If we've learned anything from Anime</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1244626560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that Japan's going to win any war based on giant robots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that Japan 's going to win any war based on giant robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that Japan's going to win any war based on giant robots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283213</id>
	<title>Which Niggers will these Killing Machines Target?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict these robotic killing machines will target, sand niggers, regular niggers, rice niggers, latin niggers, and regular niggers in that order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict these robotic killing machines will target , sand niggers , regular niggers , rice niggers , latin niggers , and regular niggers in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict these robotic killing machines will target, sand niggers, regular niggers, rice niggers, latin niggers, and regular niggers in that order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28293527</id>
	<title>possible deniability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244734140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it uses a computer remotely, it can be hacked.<br>problem is this scenario:</p><p>president: "general, the president of (omitted ) just called me and said that one of our<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; predators just bombed their new nuke plant."<br>general: "yes sir, we know"<br>president: "what happened? i dint give the order to bomb (omitted)'s nuke plant!"<br>general (grinning): "WE didnt bomb the nuke plant. somebody hacked into our network and stole a predator"<br>president (thoughtful): "i see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it uses a computer remotely , it can be hacked.problem is this scenario : president : " general , the president of ( omitted ) just called me and said that one of our       predators just bombed their new nuke plant .
" general : " yes sir , we know " president : " what happened ?
i dint give the order to bomb ( omitted ) 's nuke plant !
" general ( grinning ) : " WE didnt bomb the nuke plant .
somebody hacked into our network and stole a predator " president ( thoughtful ) : " i see ... "  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it uses a computer remotely, it can be hacked.problem is this scenario:president: "general, the president of (omitted ) just called me and said that one of our
      predators just bombed their new nuke plant.
"general: "yes sir, we know"president: "what happened?
i dint give the order to bomb (omitted)'s nuke plant!
"general (grinning): "WE didnt bomb the nuke plant.
somebody hacked into our network and stole a predator"president (thoughtful): "i see ..."
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284285</id>
	<title>Re:At all skynet references:</title>
	<author>ryturner</author>
	<datestamp>1244624460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot.  Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM  There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough.  Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on , make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot .
Take a look at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough .
Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM  There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough.
Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28291633</id>
	<title>Statement: HK-47 is ready to serve, Master.</title>
	<author>jurgenaut</author>
	<datestamp>1244726820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I'm 98\% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow minitiare organic meatbags. The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishfull thinking on my part."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm 98 \ % percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow minitiare organic meatbags .
The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted , but that might be wishfull thinking on my part .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm 98\% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow minitiare organic meatbags.
The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishfull thinking on my part.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283949</id>
	<title>Re:The next generation of military robots</title>
	<author>cyber-dragon.net</author>
	<datestamp>1244666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do... who do you think makes all the parts for US robots.</p><p>If we ever go to war with China we are SCREWED... no replacement parts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Unless we start making them in mexico...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do... who do you think makes all the parts for US robots.If we ever go to war with China we are SCREWED... no replacement parts : ) Unless we start making them in mexico.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do... who do you think makes all the parts for US robots.If we ever go to war with China we are SCREWED... no replacement parts :)Unless we start making them in mexico...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284983</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244627040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's so, and I had sort of an argument about that with my dad, who was trying to talk me into talking my daughter into joining the military. "Are you crazy?" I asked him. He said "well, it's not like they're going to be on the front lines." I replied that everywhere in Iraq or Afghanistan WAS the front line. If you're stationed in either of those countries, you are placed directly in harm's way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's so , and I had sort of an argument about that with my dad , who was trying to talk me into talking my daughter into joining the military .
" Are you crazy ?
" I asked him .
He said " well , it 's not like they 're going to be on the front lines .
" I replied that everywhere in Iraq or Afghanistan WAS the front line .
If you 're stationed in either of those countries , you are placed directly in harm 's way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's so, and I had sort of an argument about that with my dad, who was trying to talk me into talking my daughter into joining the military.
"Are you crazy?
" I asked him.
He said "well, it's not like they're going to be on the front lines.
" I replied that everywhere in Iraq or Afghanistan WAS the front line.
If you're stationed in either of those countries, you are placed directly in harm's way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1244665380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, <i>mcgrew</i>, as an Air Force veteran myself (and a combat vet and a USMC vet), everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan (and it's happened frequently) I am terribly sickened by any further clowns and their plans &amp; predictions from the Brookings Institute (they've certainly done enough damage during their existence).</p><p>It further sickens me to realize few of the blithering idiots who refer to themselves as Americans comprehend that Brzezinksi, the national security advisor under Carter, was responsible for beginning the strategic doctrine which turned a secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave (read his memoirs for the details).  I browsed the <i>Wired for War</i> - as I refuse to spend money on any senior fellows at any of these 'tutes and foundations which do so much social engineering in the USA, and elsewhere - and wouldn't recommend it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , mcgrew , as an Air Force veteran myself ( and a combat vet and a USMC vet ) , everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan ( and it 's happened frequently ) I am terribly sickened by any further clowns and their plans &amp; predictions from the Brookings Institute ( they 've certainly done enough damage during their existence ) .It further sickens me to realize few of the blithering idiots who refer to themselves as Americans comprehend that Brzezinksi , the national security advisor under Carter , was responsible for beginning the strategic doctrine which turned a secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave ( read his memoirs for the details ) .
I browsed the Wired for War - as I refuse to spend money on any senior fellows at any of these 'tutes and foundations which do so much social engineering in the USA , and elsewhere - and would n't recommend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, mcgrew, as an Air Force veteran myself (and a combat vet and a USMC vet), everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan (and it's happened frequently) I am terribly sickened by any further clowns and their plans &amp; predictions from the Brookings Institute (they've certainly done enough damage during their existence).It further sickens me to realize few of the blithering idiots who refer to themselves as Americans comprehend that Brzezinksi, the national security advisor under Carter, was responsible for beginning the strategic doctrine which turned a secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave (read his memoirs for the details).
I browsed the Wired for War - as I refuse to spend money on any senior fellows at any of these 'tutes and foundations which do so much social engineering in the USA, and elsewhere - and wouldn't recommend it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285097</id>
	<title>How much 911 can the US take?</title>
	<author>jaypyano</author>
	<datestamp>1244627520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all 911 was certainly peanuts compared to the death toll US troops caused in other countries so far. These new weapons just make it more easy for the stupid US redneck solider to kill. Possibly in return he gets bombed in a baseball stadium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all 911 was certainly peanuts compared to the death toll US troops caused in other countries so far .
These new weapons just make it more easy for the stupid US redneck solider to kill .
Possibly in return he gets bombed in a baseball stadium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all 911 was certainly peanuts compared to the death toll US troops caused in other countries so far.
These new weapons just make it more easy for the stupid US redneck solider to kill.
Possibly in return he gets bombed in a baseball stadium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284259</id>
	<title>The Rommelwood Commandant says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea .
They will be fought in space , or possibly on top of a very tall mountain .
In either case , most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots .
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear : To build and maintain those robots .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1244664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to disagree with the morality of robot vs. human war when the robots are controlled by humans.  To me, it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war.  If you are going to fight a war, the least you can do is actually do the fighting.
<br> <br>
In first person shooters, I kill people without remorse.  If I were to kill another human being, face to face, it would hold far greater meaning than moving a joystick and seeing someone die on my screen.
<br> <br>
I am of draft age myself, and I just can't grasp dehumanizing war.  I do see the positive aspects of using robots, as there are no respawns in RL, but I believe war is a necessary evil in this world, which should be fought by the human beings who feel the cause is worth fighting for.
<br> <br>
It just sort of seems like a slap in the face to those who were willing to give their lives for the cause of a war.  The mentality behind it seems to be:"I believe in this enough to kill others, but I don't want to sacrifice my own life for it."
<br> <br>
On a minor side note, at the rate that robotics are coming along, and the rate at which children can pick up complex gaming systems, will the "robotic" enlistment age drop to 14 or 15?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to disagree with the morality of robot vs. human war when the robots are controlled by humans .
To me , it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war .
If you are going to fight a war , the least you can do is actually do the fighting .
In first person shooters , I kill people without remorse .
If I were to kill another human being , face to face , it would hold far greater meaning than moving a joystick and seeing someone die on my screen .
I am of draft age myself , and I just ca n't grasp dehumanizing war .
I do see the positive aspects of using robots , as there are no respawns in RL , but I believe war is a necessary evil in this world , which should be fought by the human beings who feel the cause is worth fighting for .
It just sort of seems like a slap in the face to those who were willing to give their lives for the cause of a war .
The mentality behind it seems to be : " I believe in this enough to kill others , but I do n't want to sacrifice my own life for it .
" On a minor side note , at the rate that robotics are coming along , and the rate at which children can pick up complex gaming systems , will the " robotic " enlistment age drop to 14 or 15 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to disagree with the morality of robot vs. human war when the robots are controlled by humans.
To me, it feels wrong to take the personal aspect out of war.
If you are going to fight a war, the least you can do is actually do the fighting.
In first person shooters, I kill people without remorse.
If I were to kill another human being, face to face, it would hold far greater meaning than moving a joystick and seeing someone die on my screen.
I am of draft age myself, and I just can't grasp dehumanizing war.
I do see the positive aspects of using robots, as there are no respawns in RL, but I believe war is a necessary evil in this world, which should be fought by the human beings who feel the cause is worth fighting for.
It just sort of seems like a slap in the face to those who were willing to give their lives for the cause of a war.
The mentality behind it seems to be:"I believe in this enough to kill others, but I don't want to sacrifice my own life for it.
"
 
On a minor side note, at the rate that robotics are coming along, and the rate at which children can pick up complex gaming systems, will the "robotic" enlistment age drop to 14 or 15?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284509</id>
	<title>Blowback</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244625240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.</i> </p><p>I'm not sure I agree.  While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify... after all, the populist tide didn't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.</p></div><p>Spot on. Furthermore, the more acceptable a war is to the populace of the attacking country, by way of making it look like an arcade game, the less acceptable it will be to the people on the receiving end of the crossfire who have their houses blown up with their children inside, have surviving relatives who were previously ambivalent about jihadism, and who don't have their grief paraded on a continuous loop on Fox 'News.'  I wonder how many moderate people the US has managed to radicalize since this unprovoked war in Iraq was started.</p><p>Can you say 'Blowback?'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters , I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing .
I 'm not sure I agree .
While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties , it would also make pointless , bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace , and far easier to justify... after all , the populist tide did n't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.Spot on .
Furthermore , the more acceptable a war is to the populace of the attacking country , by way of making it look like an arcade game , the less acceptable it will be to the people on the receiving end of the crossfire who have their houses blown up with their children inside , have surviving relatives who were previously ambivalent about jihadism , and who do n't have their grief paraded on a continuous loop on Fox 'News .
' I wonder how many moderate people the US has managed to radicalize since this unprovoked war in Iraq was started.Can you say 'Blowback ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.
I'm not sure I agree.
While it would take soldiers out of the line of fire and reduce casualties, it would also make pointless, bloody wars a lot more palatable to the populace, and far easier to justify... after all, the populist tide didn't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.Spot on.
Furthermore, the more acceptable a war is to the populace of the attacking country, by way of making it look like an arcade game, the less acceptable it will be to the people on the receiving end of the crossfire who have their houses blown up with their children inside, have surviving relatives who were previously ambivalent about jihadism, and who don't have their grief paraded on a continuous loop on Fox 'News.
'  I wonder how many moderate people the US has managed to radicalize since this unprovoked war in Iraq was started.Can you say 'Blowback?
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283625</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1244665020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, not 'a taste of armageddon'....more like 'wargames'.  'Do you want to play a game?'

I bet at some point some hacker will create a real zombie bots of real military equipment. Some highschool student will think it is really funny to nuke Las Vegas.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

PS.  nuclear hand grenades also become viable once you realize it'll be a robot arm throwing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , not 'a taste of armageddon'....more like 'wargames' .
'Do you want to play a game ?
' I bet at some point some hacker will create a real zombie bots of real military equipment .
Some highschool student will think it is really funny to nuke Las Vegas .
; ) PS .
nuclear hand grenades also become viable once you realize it 'll be a robot arm throwing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, not 'a taste of armageddon'....more like 'wargames'.
'Do you want to play a game?
'

I bet at some point some hacker will create a real zombie bots of real military equipment.
Some highschool student will think it is really funny to nuke Las Vegas.
;)

PS.
nuclear hand grenades also become viable once you realize it'll be a robot arm throwing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283195</id>
	<title>Unfortunately FCS is based on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux just isn't ready for the Army's robotic combat system yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to control their robots and unmanned aircraft with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the Army 's robotic combat system yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to control their robots and unmanned aircraft with , especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the Army's robotic combat system yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to control their robots and unmanned aircraft with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289049</id>
	<title>Taking people out of the equation BAD IDEA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking people out of the equation will eventually make matters worse.  A robotic UAV can be tasked to perform tasks that would never have been dreamed before with pilots or soldiers.  What is the worse that could happen?  No one would be captured--just a disabled robot.</p><p>I think as more of the UAV are upgraded to think more on their own and not require a pilot controlling remotely, the politicians will then reach too far and direct the military to do more harm as they will have no consequences if it fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking people out of the equation will eventually make matters worse .
A robotic UAV can be tasked to perform tasks that would never have been dreamed before with pilots or soldiers .
What is the worse that could happen ?
No one would be captured--just a disabled robot.I think as more of the UAV are upgraded to think more on their own and not require a pilot controlling remotely , the politicians will then reach too far and direct the military to do more harm as they will have no consequences if it fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking people out of the equation will eventually make matters worse.
A robotic UAV can be tasked to perform tasks that would never have been dreamed before with pilots or soldiers.
What is the worse that could happen?
No one would be captured--just a disabled robot.I think as more of the UAV are upgraded to think more on their own and not require a pilot controlling remotely, the politicians will then reach too far and direct the military to do more harm as they will have no consequences if it fails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283639</id>
	<title>Why would we need robots for war by 2015?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244665080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>O ye of little faith! Surely by 2015, Barrack Obama the Friggin Messiah, will achieve Peace on Earth, and get us into the friggin Federation of Planets, there will be no crime, no poverty, no disease, and the sky will be just the right shade of pink. Disclaimer: there will also be no people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>O ye of little faith !
Surely by 2015 , Barrack Obama the Friggin Messiah , will achieve Peace on Earth , and get us into the friggin Federation of Planets , there will be no crime , no poverty , no disease , and the sky will be just the right shade of pink .
Disclaimer : there will also be no people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O ye of little faith!
Surely by 2015, Barrack Obama the Friggin Messiah, will achieve Peace on Earth, and get us into the friggin Federation of Planets, there will be no crime, no poverty, no disease, and the sky will be just the right shade of pink.
Disclaimer: there will also be no people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287569</id>
	<title>Potentially a great idea, but...</title>
	<author>alchemist68</author>
	<datestamp>1244640600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Potentially a great idea, but what happens when the opposition/enemy figures out how to block/jam the First-Person-View Fly-By-Wire carrier waves used to control these planes?  YouTube has some excellent videos on First-Person-View model airplane flying with conventional technology for the home hobbyist.  Just type in 'FPV RC plane' to get a list of videos.  I suppose if the enemy/opposition were to block the carrier waves, they would be lobbing bombs at themselves in a very uncontrolled manner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Potentially a great idea , but what happens when the opposition/enemy figures out how to block/jam the First-Person-View Fly-By-Wire carrier waves used to control these planes ?
YouTube has some excellent videos on First-Person-View model airplane flying with conventional technology for the home hobbyist .
Just type in 'FPV RC plane ' to get a list of videos .
I suppose if the enemy/opposition were to block the carrier waves , they would be lobbing bombs at themselves in a very uncontrolled manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Potentially a great idea, but what happens when the opposition/enemy figures out how to block/jam the First-Person-View Fly-By-Wire carrier waves used to control these planes?
YouTube has some excellent videos on First-Person-View model airplane flying with conventional technology for the home hobbyist.
Just type in 'FPV RC plane' to get a list of videos.
I suppose if the enemy/opposition were to block the carrier waves, they would be lobbing bombs at themselves in a very uncontrolled manner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287863</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1244642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not necessarily. To quote a particularly terrible movie which had a few redeeming lines (Stealth), "I just don't think war should turn into a video game." Removing the human cost to war removes a lot of the incentive to avoid war. And so long as there are people dying on either side, it's probably better that both sides see casualties rather than only one side.</p><p>Until we can arrange for all wars to be fought between robotic fighting forces, war will remain a terrible thing. And it needs to be terrible for people to give it the kind of respect that it deserves. It's already bad enough that the US is so much more advanced everyone else. We've seen what happens when you put someone with an itchy trigger finger in charge of an army that, for all intents and purposes, can't be defeated. The more we put robots in harm's way rather than soldiers, the more we're going to see putting those robots in harm's way as a solution to our problems.</p><p>Morally, there should be no difference between an American life and a foreign life. The mindset of "as long as it isn't anyone I know" is morally corrupt. Robotic fighting forces perpetuate that morally corrupt mindset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.Not necessarily .
To quote a particularly terrible movie which had a few redeeming lines ( Stealth ) , " I just do n't think war should turn into a video game .
" Removing the human cost to war removes a lot of the incentive to avoid war .
And so long as there are people dying on either side , it 's probably better that both sides see casualties rather than only one side.Until we can arrange for all wars to be fought between robotic fighting forces , war will remain a terrible thing .
And it needs to be terrible for people to give it the kind of respect that it deserves .
It 's already bad enough that the US is so much more advanced everyone else .
We 've seen what happens when you put someone with an itchy trigger finger in charge of an army that , for all intents and purposes , ca n't be defeated .
The more we put robots in harm 's way rather than soldiers , the more we 're going to see putting those robots in harm 's way as a solution to our problems.Morally , there should be no difference between an American life and a foreign life .
The mindset of " as long as it is n't anyone I know " is morally corrupt .
Robotic fighting forces perpetuate that morally corrupt mindset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.Not necessarily.
To quote a particularly terrible movie which had a few redeeming lines (Stealth), "I just don't think war should turn into a video game.
" Removing the human cost to war removes a lot of the incentive to avoid war.
And so long as there are people dying on either side, it's probably better that both sides see casualties rather than only one side.Until we can arrange for all wars to be fought between robotic fighting forces, war will remain a terrible thing.
And it needs to be terrible for people to give it the kind of respect that it deserves.
It's already bad enough that the US is so much more advanced everyone else.
We've seen what happens when you put someone with an itchy trigger finger in charge of an army that, for all intents and purposes, can't be defeated.
The more we put robots in harm's way rather than soldiers, the more we're going to see putting those robots in harm's way as a solution to our problems.Morally, there should be no difference between an American life and a foreign life.
The mindset of "as long as it isn't anyone I know" is morally corrupt.
Robotic fighting forces perpetuate that morally corrupt mindset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284341</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1244624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to nitpic but there are no frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Also women cannot be in Combat arms, only combat support.  This is not to say they could not be harmed, but that they won't be directly placed into harm.  It's a bad thing when support units need to pull triggers, though often necessary when operating in a hostile environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to nitpic but there are no frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Also women can not be in Combat arms , only combat support .
This is not to say they could not be harmed , but that they wo n't be directly placed into harm .
It 's a bad thing when support units need to pull triggers , though often necessary when operating in a hostile environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to nitpic but there are no frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also women cannot be in Combat arms, only combat support.
This is not to say they could not be harmed, but that they won't be directly placed into harm.
It's a bad thing when support units need to pull triggers, though often necessary when operating in a hostile environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283769</id>
	<title>Re:rock or a UAV</title>
	<author>slashdotmsiriv</author>
	<datestamp>1244665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hate to break this little bubble of yours<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but couldn't resist the temptation:</p><p><a href="http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/drone.htm" title="uniorb.com">http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/drone.htm</a> [uniorb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hate to break this little bubble of yours ... but could n't resist the temptation : http : //uniorb.com/RCHECK/drone.htm [ uniorb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hate to break this little bubble of yours ... but couldn't resist the temptation:http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/drone.htm [uniorb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287017</id>
	<title>obligatory simpsons quote</title>
	<author>radmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.  In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.  And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear:  To build and maintain those robots.  Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea .
They will be fought in space , or possibly on top of a very tall mountain .
In either case , most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots .
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear : To build and maintain those robots .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear:  To build and maintain those robots.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287507</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1244640120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.</p></div><p>no, NOT having troops invading other countries would be a good thing</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters , I 'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.no , NOT having troops invading other countries would be a good thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Air Force veteran with two draftable daughters, I'd say relying on robots rather than having our troops shot at and bombed is a GOOD thing.no, NOT having troops invading other countries would be a good thing
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28292103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28291415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_132236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284341
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28286439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284073
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28290317
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28291415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28285121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284273
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28289343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28292103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28288401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28284321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28283949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_132236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_132236.28287807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
