<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_11_1355257</id>
	<title>Collateral Damage From Cyber Warfare?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1244733240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"If you're thinking about applying for that <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-tc-nw-cyber-security-0529-05sbmay30,0,2220257.story">open US cyber warfare czar position</a>, Robert X. Cringely points out that <a href="http://www.cringely.com/2009/06/collateral-damage/">you will have to effectively function as a <em>world</em> cyber warfare czar</a>, a fact that neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have yet been willing to embrace, at least in public. The international nature of today's outsourced-and-offshored IT business has big implications for US security. Try to do a security audit of your company's technical resources in Argentina or Bangladesh, suggests Bob, and see what nightmare is unveiled. Toss some random <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2014239/China-Dominates-In-NSA-Backed-Coding-Contest">Code Gods</a> into the mix, says Cringely, and it's really too tough to predict who might win in a game of US vs. Albania."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " If you 're thinking about applying for that open US cyber warfare czar position , Robert X. Cringely points out that you will have to effectively function as a world cyber warfare czar , a fact that neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have yet been willing to embrace , at least in public .
The international nature of today 's outsourced-and-offshored IT business has big implications for US security .
Try to do a security audit of your company 's technical resources in Argentina or Bangladesh , suggests Bob , and see what nightmare is unveiled .
Toss some random Code Gods into the mix , says Cringely , and it 's really too tough to predict who might win in a game of US vs .
Albania. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "If you're thinking about applying for that open US cyber warfare czar position, Robert X. Cringely points out that you will have to effectively function as a world cyber warfare czar, a fact that neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have yet been willing to embrace, at least in public.
The international nature of today's outsourced-and-offshored IT business has big implications for US security.
Try to do a security audit of your company's technical resources in Argentina or Bangladesh, suggests Bob, and see what nightmare is unveiled.
Toss some random Code Gods into the mix, says Cringely, and it's really too tough to predict who might win in a game of US vs.
Albania."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295033</id>
	<title>Idiots. Outsourcing, offshoring etc irrelevant</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1244739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would win in any given matchup are underground groups. not any countries. no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able hackers of underground scenes. this has been the case all along. us, china, russia, any of them has been hacked by these people wantonly, at will. neither this will change with applicatio of a 'cybersecurity tzar' or any such absurd official, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of men in any country's 'cyberwarfare unit'.</p><p>hacking, cracking, infiltration, security et al - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (im not talking about phishing or script kiddying), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly minds of any society. good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'cybersecurity team'. if one thing is in common in these types, its their mutual hatred of any kind of establishment.</p><p>am i one of them ? no. but i can appreciate talent, and i can see cold hard truth as it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would win in any given matchup are underground groups .
not any countries .
no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able hackers of underground scenes .
this has been the case all along .
us , china , russia , any of them has been hacked by these people wantonly , at will .
neither this will change with applicatio of a 'cybersecurity tzar ' or any such absurd official , or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of men in any country 's 'cyberwarfare unit'.hacking , cracking , infiltration , security et al - these all require huge talent in their highest levels ( im not talking about phishing or script kiddying ) , and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious , unruly minds of any society .
good luck to you in recruiting those to any government 's 'cybersecurity team' .
if one thing is in common in these types , its their mutual hatred of any kind of establishment.am i one of them ?
no. but i can appreciate talent , and i can see cold hard truth as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would win in any given matchup are underground groups.
not any countries.
no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able hackers of underground scenes.
this has been the case all along.
us, china, russia, any of them has been hacked by these people wantonly, at will.
neither this will change with applicatio of a 'cybersecurity tzar' or any such absurd official, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of men in any country's 'cyberwarfare unit'.hacking, cracking, infiltration, security et al - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (im not talking about phishing or script kiddying), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly minds of any society.
good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'cybersecurity team'.
if one thing is in common in these types, its their mutual hatred of any kind of establishment.am i one of them ?
no. but i can appreciate talent, and i can see cold hard truth as it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28298307</id>
	<title>Re:Wait...</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1244750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having lived in Houston, post Ike, and seeing first had what a few days with no power in a large city can do...  You might want to hear about it.  And generators work very well when the gas station has no power to refill it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having lived in Houston , post Ike , and seeing first had what a few days with no power in a large city can do... You might want to hear about it .
And generators work very well when the gas station has no power to refill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having lived in Houston, post Ike, and seeing first had what a few days with no power in a large city can do...  You might want to hear about it.
And generators work very well when the gas station has no power to refill it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1244736900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294915</id>
	<title>Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you haven't seen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live\_free\_or\_die\_hard" title="wikipedia.org">Die Hard IV: Revenge of the Nerds</a> [wikipedia.org], you should. It's a great nerd movie (at least, the unrated version is, the theatrical release was more like a censored for TV version).</p><p>Almost all the characters except John McClain are nerds. "Freddy", AKA "W4rlock", is the stereotypical uber-nerd, living in his mom's basement. In the movie, America's infrastructure is attacked programatticaly. As McClain and Farrell (a former black hat who has turned white hat) are flying the helicoppter over the darkened city (the bad guys have killed all the electricity) trying to find w4rlock, McClain asks him how they're going to find his house. "Easy, it'll be the one with the lights on".</p><p>The premise of the movie is a "fire sale" - everything must go. The bad guys turn all the traffic lights green, causing massive traffic accidents, then have the stock market boards show losses in all stocks, causing wall street panic, kill the electricity, etc.</p><p>It's great mindless fun about cyber-warfare. From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live\_free\_or\_die\_hard#Script\_and\_title" title="wikipedia.org">the wikipedia article about the film</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>The film's plot is based on an earlier script entitled WW3.com by David Marconi, screenwriter of Enemy of the State.[9] Using a Wired article entitled "A Farewell to Arms"[2] by John Carlin, Marconi crafted a screenplay about a cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S.[10] The attack procedure is known as a "fire sale," depicting a three-stage coordinated attack on a country's transportation, telecommunications, financial, and utilities infrastructure systems. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the project was stalled, only to be resurrected several years later and rewritten into Live Free or Die Hard by Doug Richardson and eventually by Mark Bomback.[11]</p><p>Willis said in 2005 that the film would be called Die Hard 4.0, as it revolves around computers and cyber-terrorism. IGN later reported the film was to be called Die Hard: Reset instead.[12] 20th Century Fox later announced the title as Live Free or Die Hard and set a release date of June 29, 2007 with filming to begin in September 2006.[13][14] The title is based on the state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die", which is attributed to a quote from General John Stark. International trailers use the Die Hard 4.0 title,[15] as the film was released outside North America with that title. Early into the DVD commentary for the film, both Wiseman and Willis note a preference for Die Hard 4.0, and subtly mock the Live Free or Die Hard title.[16]</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't seen Die Hard IV : Revenge of the Nerds [ wikipedia.org ] , you should .
It 's a great nerd movie ( at least , the unrated version is , the theatrical release was more like a censored for TV version ) .Almost all the characters except John McClain are nerds .
" Freddy " , AKA " W4rlock " , is the stereotypical uber-nerd , living in his mom 's basement .
In the movie , America 's infrastructure is attacked programatticaly .
As McClain and Farrell ( a former black hat who has turned white hat ) are flying the helicoppter over the darkened city ( the bad guys have killed all the electricity ) trying to find w4rlock , McClain asks him how they 're going to find his house .
" Easy , it 'll be the one with the lights on " .The premise of the movie is a " fire sale " - everything must go .
The bad guys turn all the traffic lights green , causing massive traffic accidents , then have the stock market boards show losses in all stocks , causing wall street panic , kill the electricity , etc.It 's great mindless fun about cyber-warfare .
From the wikipedia article about the film [ wikipedia.org ] The film 's plot is based on an earlier script entitled WW3.com by David Marconi , screenwriter of Enemy of the State .
[ 9 ] Using a Wired article entitled " A Farewell to Arms " [ 2 ] by John Carlin , Marconi crafted a screenplay about a cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S. [ 10 ] The attack procedure is known as a " fire sale , " depicting a three-stage coordinated attack on a country 's transportation , telecommunications , financial , and utilities infrastructure systems .
After the September 11 , 2001 attacks , the project was stalled , only to be resurrected several years later and rewritten into Live Free or Die Hard by Doug Richardson and eventually by Mark Bomback .
[ 11 ] Willis said in 2005 that the film would be called Die Hard 4.0 , as it revolves around computers and cyber-terrorism .
IGN later reported the film was to be called Die Hard : Reset instead .
[ 12 ] 20th Century Fox later announced the title as Live Free or Die Hard and set a release date of June 29 , 2007 with filming to begin in September 2006 .
[ 13 ] [ 14 ] The title is based on the state motto of New Hampshire , " Live Free or Die " , which is attributed to a quote from General John Stark .
International trailers use the Die Hard 4.0 title , [ 15 ] as the film was released outside North America with that title .
Early into the DVD commentary for the film , both Wiseman and Willis note a preference for Die Hard 4.0 , and subtly mock the Live Free or Die Hard title .
[ 16 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't seen Die Hard IV: Revenge of the Nerds [wikipedia.org], you should.
It's a great nerd movie (at least, the unrated version is, the theatrical release was more like a censored for TV version).Almost all the characters except John McClain are nerds.
"Freddy", AKA "W4rlock", is the stereotypical uber-nerd, living in his mom's basement.
In the movie, America's infrastructure is attacked programatticaly.
As McClain and Farrell (a former black hat who has turned white hat) are flying the helicoppter over the darkened city (the bad guys have killed all the electricity) trying to find w4rlock, McClain asks him how they're going to find his house.
"Easy, it'll be the one with the lights on".The premise of the movie is a "fire sale" - everything must go.
The bad guys turn all the traffic lights green, causing massive traffic accidents, then have the stock market boards show losses in all stocks, causing wall street panic, kill the electricity, etc.It's great mindless fun about cyber-warfare.
From the wikipedia article about the film [wikipedia.org] The film's plot is based on an earlier script entitled WW3.com by David Marconi, screenwriter of Enemy of the State.
[9] Using a Wired article entitled "A Farewell to Arms"[2] by John Carlin, Marconi crafted a screenplay about a cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S.[10] The attack procedure is known as a "fire sale," depicting a three-stage coordinated attack on a country's transportation, telecommunications, financial, and utilities infrastructure systems.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the project was stalled, only to be resurrected several years later and rewritten into Live Free or Die Hard by Doug Richardson and eventually by Mark Bomback.
[11]Willis said in 2005 that the film would be called Die Hard 4.0, as it revolves around computers and cyber-terrorism.
IGN later reported the film was to be called Die Hard: Reset instead.
[12] 20th Century Fox later announced the title as Live Free or Die Hard and set a release date of June 29, 2007 with filming to begin in September 2006.
[13][14] The title is based on the state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die", which is attributed to a quote from General John Stark.
International trailers use the Die Hard 4.0 title,[15] as the film was released outside North America with that title.
Early into the DVD commentary for the film, both Wiseman and Willis note a preference for Die Hard 4.0, and subtly mock the Live Free or Die Hard title.
[16]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294349</id>
	<title>This makes perfect sence.</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1244737320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is really simple, no one country owns the internet and therefore no one country can stand alone in cyber warfare. I do think that it will take a long time to get past the politics around it being related to any government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is really simple , no one country owns the internet and therefore no one country can stand alone in cyber warfare .
I do think that it will take a long time to get past the politics around it being related to any government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is really simple, no one country owns the internet and therefore no one country can stand alone in cyber warfare.
I do think that it will take a long time to get past the politics around it being related to any government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295533</id>
	<title>Politics</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244741400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we've already observed is the fact that cyber-warfare is a very real reality.  Sure, it hasn't become a problem for the lowest common denominator, but there is no un-crossing that line, and no amount of pretending can make that potential threat go away.  We can prevent cyber-warfare, or we can promote it.</p><p>One of the simplest ways to promote it is to treat it like "anything goes".  Rules (including social rules!) <b>have</b> to apply; and politics has shown us a way.  Treaties, alliances, and all that good stuff -have- to happen, or it'll be a dog eat dog world (just imagine...  another country trashing the NYSE - wouldn't that be a problem)</p><p>Politics isn't all bad.  It brings us a lot of the sense of safety we tend to take for granted.  We can say that we actually trust someone, and we don't have to look over our shoulder at them so much.  Those boundaries have made economic and national interests a reality.</p><p>Cyberspace can be relegated to a position where it's just a national asset.  However, it must be stressed that it's also a national asset that can hurt us just as much as it can help us, and where the boundaries exist is becoming more and more blurred.  One country can (very easily) do nefarious things with another country's connection to the internet.</p><p>In the advent of a high-tech war (not a low-tech guerrilla warfare), we're at a disadvantage.  We have the most to lose, because so much of our assets depend on the Internet Backbone.  Can you imagine a NYSE without an internet to connect it to places?  It would mean simultaneous economic woes as well as mass confusion and panic.</p><p>The very design of the internet works against us.  Right now, the entire backbone of the internet is not one that lends itself easily to politics.  Right now, it's a sort of uber-organization, but we can't exactly just depend on it to be around forever without a backup plan, can we?  It simply has to be politicized for it to exist in the long run.  Net neutrality provides a framework where it can happen, and where things can become heterogeneous (and independent) in a peaceful manner.</p><p>The next step up from Net Neutrality is to draw up equivalents of treaties, which would allow everyone a chance to protect their (business or national) interests.  After all, cyberspace is not just an asset, it's a territory where things can happen.  Those treaties will mostly fall along the lines of political boundaries.</p><p>Of course, a treaty has no weight without a penalty attached to its violation.  Even if that penalty is very simple (i.e. you just hacked us, so you can't have a connection to us any more).</p><p>We're talking about the dawn of a new age, where we're going to be hiring politicians to talk computer lingo.  This -has- to be handled with care, and with all of the expertise that is relevant to politics, for it to not blow up in our faces.  If we go about this the wrong way, it could lead to open warfare, which is why we need the right approach.</p><p>By the way, the last thing I want as the cyberwarfare czar is a RIAA lawyer...  because they'll demand things of other nations that would blow up in our face(s)...  and they already extort the average Joe.  They've already got into many other places of the gov't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we 've already observed is the fact that cyber-warfare is a very real reality .
Sure , it has n't become a problem for the lowest common denominator , but there is no un-crossing that line , and no amount of pretending can make that potential threat go away .
We can prevent cyber-warfare , or we can promote it.One of the simplest ways to promote it is to treat it like " anything goes " .
Rules ( including social rules !
) have to apply ; and politics has shown us a way .
Treaties , alliances , and all that good stuff -have- to happen , or it 'll be a dog eat dog world ( just imagine... another country trashing the NYSE - would n't that be a problem ) Politics is n't all bad .
It brings us a lot of the sense of safety we tend to take for granted .
We can say that we actually trust someone , and we do n't have to look over our shoulder at them so much .
Those boundaries have made economic and national interests a reality.Cyberspace can be relegated to a position where it 's just a national asset .
However , it must be stressed that it 's also a national asset that can hurt us just as much as it can help us , and where the boundaries exist is becoming more and more blurred .
One country can ( very easily ) do nefarious things with another country 's connection to the internet.In the advent of a high-tech war ( not a low-tech guerrilla warfare ) , we 're at a disadvantage .
We have the most to lose , because so much of our assets depend on the Internet Backbone .
Can you imagine a NYSE without an internet to connect it to places ?
It would mean simultaneous economic woes as well as mass confusion and panic.The very design of the internet works against us .
Right now , the entire backbone of the internet is not one that lends itself easily to politics .
Right now , it 's a sort of uber-organization , but we ca n't exactly just depend on it to be around forever without a backup plan , can we ?
It simply has to be politicized for it to exist in the long run .
Net neutrality provides a framework where it can happen , and where things can become heterogeneous ( and independent ) in a peaceful manner.The next step up from Net Neutrality is to draw up equivalents of treaties , which would allow everyone a chance to protect their ( business or national ) interests .
After all , cyberspace is not just an asset , it 's a territory where things can happen .
Those treaties will mostly fall along the lines of political boundaries.Of course , a treaty has no weight without a penalty attached to its violation .
Even if that penalty is very simple ( i.e .
you just hacked us , so you ca n't have a connection to us any more ) .We 're talking about the dawn of a new age , where we 're going to be hiring politicians to talk computer lingo .
This -has- to be handled with care , and with all of the expertise that is relevant to politics , for it to not blow up in our faces .
If we go about this the wrong way , it could lead to open warfare , which is why we need the right approach.By the way , the last thing I want as the cyberwarfare czar is a RIAA lawyer... because they 'll demand things of other nations that would blow up in our face ( s ) ... and they already extort the average Joe .
They 've already got into many other places of the gov't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we've already observed is the fact that cyber-warfare is a very real reality.
Sure, it hasn't become a problem for the lowest common denominator, but there is no un-crossing that line, and no amount of pretending can make that potential threat go away.
We can prevent cyber-warfare, or we can promote it.One of the simplest ways to promote it is to treat it like "anything goes".
Rules (including social rules!
) have to apply; and politics has shown us a way.
Treaties, alliances, and all that good stuff -have- to happen, or it'll be a dog eat dog world (just imagine...  another country trashing the NYSE - wouldn't that be a problem)Politics isn't all bad.
It brings us a lot of the sense of safety we tend to take for granted.
We can say that we actually trust someone, and we don't have to look over our shoulder at them so much.
Those boundaries have made economic and national interests a reality.Cyberspace can be relegated to a position where it's just a national asset.
However, it must be stressed that it's also a national asset that can hurt us just as much as it can help us, and where the boundaries exist is becoming more and more blurred.
One country can (very easily) do nefarious things with another country's connection to the internet.In the advent of a high-tech war (not a low-tech guerrilla warfare), we're at a disadvantage.
We have the most to lose, because so much of our assets depend on the Internet Backbone.
Can you imagine a NYSE without an internet to connect it to places?
It would mean simultaneous economic woes as well as mass confusion and panic.The very design of the internet works against us.
Right now, the entire backbone of the internet is not one that lends itself easily to politics.
Right now, it's a sort of uber-organization, but we can't exactly just depend on it to be around forever without a backup plan, can we?
It simply has to be politicized for it to exist in the long run.
Net neutrality provides a framework where it can happen, and where things can become heterogeneous (and independent) in a peaceful manner.The next step up from Net Neutrality is to draw up equivalents of treaties, which would allow everyone a chance to protect their (business or national) interests.
After all, cyberspace is not just an asset, it's a territory where things can happen.
Those treaties will mostly fall along the lines of political boundaries.Of course, a treaty has no weight without a penalty attached to its violation.
Even if that penalty is very simple (i.e.
you just hacked us, so you can't have a connection to us any more).We're talking about the dawn of a new age, where we're going to be hiring politicians to talk computer lingo.
This -has- to be handled with care, and with all of the expertise that is relevant to politics, for it to not blow up in our faces.
If we go about this the wrong way, it could lead to open warfare, which is why we need the right approach.By the way, the last thing I want as the cyberwarfare czar is a RIAA lawyer...  because they'll demand things of other nations that would blow up in our face(s)...  and they already extort the average Joe.
They've already got into many other places of the gov't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283</id>
	<title>Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The man is a tremendous douche who always writes ridiculous articles so that people get their dander up and drive traffic. He's nothing more than a journo-troll.</p><p>And this whole cyber-crap thing misses the mark. First off, nix the cyber. Nothing makes you sound less knowledgeable than using cyber when talking about computers. Second off, computer warfare is just another way of fucking with the enemy's infrastructure. If anything, you could classify it a subset of cold warfare. That's anything that's indirect, doesn't involve the acting killing of others, but is a true struggle between nations. Economic warfare is the usual manifestation with trade wars, resource wars, and political maneuvering. It's not some crazy new thing that's all black leather and sexy computer chicks.</p><p>Did you steal info from a poorly-secured computer system? Great, that's just digital espionage. You could have sent a guy in with a camera to photograph stuff 30 years ago but you did it with a computer now. Same idea, different tools. Did you crash his telcom system? Great. Could have been done with a saboteur 30 years ago (generally poor luck with that sort of thing) but you managed it from your desk. Excellent.</p><p>While there will always be security holes in software, most of this exposure can be mitigated against with simple, sensible procedures. The thing we tend to forget is real life ain't like Hollywood. It may be cool in Chuck to think that a guy with a supercomputer armband can hijack a Predator whenever he feels like it but that's not reality. It may be cool to think that a hacker could pick any target he wants and break in but it's usually more a matter of running scripts and finding holes where you can get them, very luck of the draw.</p><p>When it comes to infrastructure attacks, I'm far less concerned with computer attacks. Throughout this country, we have a number of single points of failure that would be difficult to replace. Any civil engineer could draw up a hitlist in five minutes far more knowledgeable than I'm going to suggest here.</p><p>1. Long-haul transmission lines. It wouldn't take that much explosive to bring a tower down and they're often running through isolated areas. Knock a few towers down, then we're stuck spending billions to guard the rest.</p><p>2. While everyone is preoccupied with towers, hit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...crap, I'm forgetting the name. My memory is wonky here but there's some expensive stuff used in electrical distribution that has very long lead times for ordering replacements. Blow up one of these, it could be a year before the new one arrives.</p><p>3. While everyone is preoccupied with that, send a few Lee Malvo teams to randomly snipe people around the country. Doesn't matter that the average commuter is ten times more likely to die in a crash that day than get sniped, everyone will panic.</p><p>4. While everyone is preoccupied with snipers, one of the other soft targets can be hit. Seriously, one electrical line failing took out New York. Making that happen again would have to be easier than plots like blowing up tanker trucks in the tunnels.</p><p>By all means, let's protect the computers but it's attacks like I've outlined above that I think would prove far more deadly. Of course, if I were the terrorist, I'd rather fart around with computer attacks from the safety of my cave than risk entering the target country but that's just me. I think people should be ridiculed for their political views, not killed. I'd make a lousy terrorist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The man is a tremendous douche who always writes ridiculous articles so that people get their dander up and drive traffic .
He 's nothing more than a journo-troll.And this whole cyber-crap thing misses the mark .
First off , nix the cyber .
Nothing makes you sound less knowledgeable than using cyber when talking about computers .
Second off , computer warfare is just another way of fucking with the enemy 's infrastructure .
If anything , you could classify it a subset of cold warfare .
That 's anything that 's indirect , does n't involve the acting killing of others , but is a true struggle between nations .
Economic warfare is the usual manifestation with trade wars , resource wars , and political maneuvering .
It 's not some crazy new thing that 's all black leather and sexy computer chicks.Did you steal info from a poorly-secured computer system ?
Great , that 's just digital espionage .
You could have sent a guy in with a camera to photograph stuff 30 years ago but you did it with a computer now .
Same idea , different tools .
Did you crash his telcom system ?
Great. Could have been done with a saboteur 30 years ago ( generally poor luck with that sort of thing ) but you managed it from your desk .
Excellent.While there will always be security holes in software , most of this exposure can be mitigated against with simple , sensible procedures .
The thing we tend to forget is real life ai n't like Hollywood .
It may be cool in Chuck to think that a guy with a supercomputer armband can hijack a Predator whenever he feels like it but that 's not reality .
It may be cool to think that a hacker could pick any target he wants and break in but it 's usually more a matter of running scripts and finding holes where you can get them , very luck of the draw.When it comes to infrastructure attacks , I 'm far less concerned with computer attacks .
Throughout this country , we have a number of single points of failure that would be difficult to replace .
Any civil engineer could draw up a hitlist in five minutes far more knowledgeable than I 'm going to suggest here.1 .
Long-haul transmission lines .
It would n't take that much explosive to bring a tower down and they 're often running through isolated areas .
Knock a few towers down , then we 're stuck spending billions to guard the rest.2 .
While everyone is preoccupied with towers , hit the ...crap , I 'm forgetting the name .
My memory is wonky here but there 's some expensive stuff used in electrical distribution that has very long lead times for ordering replacements .
Blow up one of these , it could be a year before the new one arrives.3 .
While everyone is preoccupied with that , send a few Lee Malvo teams to randomly snipe people around the country .
Does n't matter that the average commuter is ten times more likely to die in a crash that day than get sniped , everyone will panic.4 .
While everyone is preoccupied with snipers , one of the other soft targets can be hit .
Seriously , one electrical line failing took out New York .
Making that happen again would have to be easier than plots like blowing up tanker trucks in the tunnels.By all means , let 's protect the computers but it 's attacks like I 've outlined above that I think would prove far more deadly .
Of course , if I were the terrorist , I 'd rather fart around with computer attacks from the safety of my cave than risk entering the target country but that 's just me .
I think people should be ridiculed for their political views , not killed .
I 'd make a lousy terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man is a tremendous douche who always writes ridiculous articles so that people get their dander up and drive traffic.
He's nothing more than a journo-troll.And this whole cyber-crap thing misses the mark.
First off, nix the cyber.
Nothing makes you sound less knowledgeable than using cyber when talking about computers.
Second off, computer warfare is just another way of fucking with the enemy's infrastructure.
If anything, you could classify it a subset of cold warfare.
That's anything that's indirect, doesn't involve the acting killing of others, but is a true struggle between nations.
Economic warfare is the usual manifestation with trade wars, resource wars, and political maneuvering.
It's not some crazy new thing that's all black leather and sexy computer chicks.Did you steal info from a poorly-secured computer system?
Great, that's just digital espionage.
You could have sent a guy in with a camera to photograph stuff 30 years ago but you did it with a computer now.
Same idea, different tools.
Did you crash his telcom system?
Great. Could have been done with a saboteur 30 years ago (generally poor luck with that sort of thing) but you managed it from your desk.
Excellent.While there will always be security holes in software, most of this exposure can be mitigated against with simple, sensible procedures.
The thing we tend to forget is real life ain't like Hollywood.
It may be cool in Chuck to think that a guy with a supercomputer armband can hijack a Predator whenever he feels like it but that's not reality.
It may be cool to think that a hacker could pick any target he wants and break in but it's usually more a matter of running scripts and finding holes where you can get them, very luck of the draw.When it comes to infrastructure attacks, I'm far less concerned with computer attacks.
Throughout this country, we have a number of single points of failure that would be difficult to replace.
Any civil engineer could draw up a hitlist in five minutes far more knowledgeable than I'm going to suggest here.1.
Long-haul transmission lines.
It wouldn't take that much explosive to bring a tower down and they're often running through isolated areas.
Knock a few towers down, then we're stuck spending billions to guard the rest.2.
While everyone is preoccupied with towers, hit the ...crap, I'm forgetting the name.
My memory is wonky here but there's some expensive stuff used in electrical distribution that has very long lead times for ordering replacements.
Blow up one of these, it could be a year before the new one arrives.3.
While everyone is preoccupied with that, send a few Lee Malvo teams to randomly snipe people around the country.
Doesn't matter that the average commuter is ten times more likely to die in a crash that day than get sniped, everyone will panic.4.
While everyone is preoccupied with snipers, one of the other soft targets can be hit.
Seriously, one electrical line failing took out New York.
Making that happen again would have to be easier than plots like blowing up tanker trucks in the tunnels.By all means, let's protect the computers but it's attacks like I've outlined above that I think would prove far more deadly.
Of course, if I were the terrorist, I'd rather fart around with computer attacks from the safety of my cave than risk entering the target country but that's just me.
I think people should be ridiculed for their political views, not killed.
I'd make a lousy terrorist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294479</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1244737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We must certainly dispense with this notion that US interests somehow trump the rest of the world's nations' sovereignty.  They have no more right to be world internet czars than they do to be world police.  For what its worth, our national borders protect us from becoming them and that's something I, and other nationalists, appreciate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We must certainly dispense with this notion that US interests somehow trump the rest of the world 's nations ' sovereignty .
They have no more right to be world internet czars than they do to be world police .
For what its worth , our national borders protect us from becoming them and that 's something I , and other nationalists , appreciate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We must certainly dispense with this notion that US interests somehow trump the rest of the world's nations' sovereignty.
They have no more right to be world internet czars than they do to be world police.
For what its worth, our national borders protect us from becoming them and that's something I, and other nationalists, appreciate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295453</id>
	<title>Re:North American Union</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244741040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proposed by who? It isn't something I have seen getting any serious political attention, so talking about it as if it is a serious possibility is on the level with talking about the proposed Interplanetary Union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proposed by who ?
It is n't something I have seen getting any serious political attention , so talking about it as if it is a serious possibility is on the level with talking about the proposed Interplanetary Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proposed by who?
It isn't something I have seen getting any serious political attention, so talking about it as if it is a serious possibility is on the level with talking about the proposed Interplanetary Union.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294661</id>
	<title>The ways things are going</title>
	<author>MoldySpore</author>
	<datestamp>1244738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As disturbing as it is to me, that is the way things seem to be going. "World" or "International" is a word being thrown around at the government level for a long time now. Especially since countries are slowly becoming more and more combined in terms of borders (look at the European Union, and the proposed North American Union and Asian Union). While I don't agree or think these "unions" are great ideas, having the position of the cyber security "czar" be a kind of international position would sorta make sense...</p><p>I do nit envy whoever gets that position though, since trying to even audit network information, or anything to do with an overseas country is a real pain. A company I worked for had elements in Argentina as well as India (mostly outsourcing of support calls for India) and some of the things were obnoxious that had to be done to audit security and network policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As disturbing as it is to me , that is the way things seem to be going .
" World " or " International " is a word being thrown around at the government level for a long time now .
Especially since countries are slowly becoming more and more combined in terms of borders ( look at the European Union , and the proposed North American Union and Asian Union ) .
While I do n't agree or think these " unions " are great ideas , having the position of the cyber security " czar " be a kind of international position would sorta make sense...I do nit envy whoever gets that position though , since trying to even audit network information , or anything to do with an overseas country is a real pain .
A company I worked for had elements in Argentina as well as India ( mostly outsourcing of support calls for India ) and some of the things were obnoxious that had to be done to audit security and network policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As disturbing as it is to me, that is the way things seem to be going.
"World" or "International" is a word being thrown around at the government level for a long time now.
Especially since countries are slowly becoming more and more combined in terms of borders (look at the European Union, and the proposed North American Union and Asian Union).
While I don't agree or think these "unions" are great ideas, having the position of the cyber security "czar" be a kind of international position would sorta make sense...I do nit envy whoever gets that position though, since trying to even audit network information, or anything to do with an overseas country is a real pain.
A company I worked for had elements in Argentina as well as India (mostly outsourcing of support calls for India) and some of the things were obnoxious that had to be done to audit security and network policies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296577</id>
	<title>Wall Street downtime</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1244745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What worries me is an attack that takes Wall Street down for three weeks.  When it comes back up, the US will no longer be the financial center of the world.  Singapore, Beijing, and Dubai will have taken up the load.
</p><p>
That wasn't possible in 2001, by the way; the other trading centers didn't have the capacity or the capital backing.  Now they do.
</p><p>
Then again, Beijing is going to displace New York within a decade anyway.  The US is now a debtor nation, and trading moves away from debtor nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What worries me is an attack that takes Wall Street down for three weeks .
When it comes back up , the US will no longer be the financial center of the world .
Singapore , Beijing , and Dubai will have taken up the load .
That was n't possible in 2001 , by the way ; the other trading centers did n't have the capacity or the capital backing .
Now they do .
Then again , Beijing is going to displace New York within a decade anyway .
The US is now a debtor nation , and trading moves away from debtor nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What worries me is an attack that takes Wall Street down for three weeks.
When it comes back up, the US will no longer be the financial center of the world.
Singapore, Beijing, and Dubai will have taken up the load.
That wasn't possible in 2001, by the way; the other trading centers didn't have the capacity or the capital backing.
Now they do.
Then again, Beijing is going to displace New York within a decade anyway.
The US is now a debtor nation, and trading moves away from debtor nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294787</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nations are a way of not putting all our eggs in one basket. One world also means one set of laws, one set of ideals, one economy. If that fails, we're all screwed, not just the people in one failed country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nations are a way of not putting all our eggs in one basket .
One world also means one set of laws , one set of ideals , one economy .
If that fails , we 're all screwed , not just the people in one failed country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nations are a way of not putting all our eggs in one basket.
One world also means one set of laws, one set of ideals, one economy.
If that fails, we're all screwed, not just the people in one failed country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294553</id>
	<title>W00t 5fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244737980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in a head spiining</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a head spiining</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a head spiining</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294453</id>
	<title>The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1244737680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the widely used operating systems out there is secure. Until we embrace microkernels which have been proven to be secure, along with default usage of the object capability model, we'll never be safe.</p><p>It's possible to secure a computer to withstand the full force of the internet, even with normal users... but not with the code we have now.</p><p>Tannenbaum is right about microkernels... and Linus has reached the wrong conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the widely used operating systems out there is secure .
Until we embrace microkernels which have been proven to be secure , along with default usage of the object capability model , we 'll never be safe.It 's possible to secure a computer to withstand the full force of the internet , even with normal users... but not with the code we have now.Tannenbaum is right about microkernels... and Linus has reached the wrong conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the widely used operating systems out there is secure.
Until we embrace microkernels which have been proven to be secure, along with default usage of the object capability model, we'll never be safe.It's possible to secure a computer to withstand the full force of the internet, even with normal users... but not with the code we have now.Tannenbaum is right about microkernels... and Linus has reached the wrong conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294637</id>
	<title>Countries?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1244738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet isnt about geographical borders, and treating it like it is definately will cause collateral damage. So far most of internet based attacks were done by individuals or groups of individuals not related with government (at least, not directly). Even If we put a complex (?) criminal organization instead of a single person behind the biggest botnets, we would not be speaking about countries. And even if countries try to get a cyberarmy, probably the biggest talents (and so threats) will want to be out of there.<br><br>Probably a better example could be spam. Some administrators take as policy ban entire countries because too much spam coming from there. You think could be some collateral victims in that approach if made generic? (hint, most of the spam is still generated in US).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet isnt about geographical borders , and treating it like it is definately will cause collateral damage .
So far most of internet based attacks were done by individuals or groups of individuals not related with government ( at least , not directly ) .
Even If we put a complex ( ?
) criminal organization instead of a single person behind the biggest botnets , we would not be speaking about countries .
And even if countries try to get a cyberarmy , probably the biggest talents ( and so threats ) will want to be out of there.Probably a better example could be spam .
Some administrators take as policy ban entire countries because too much spam coming from there .
You think could be some collateral victims in that approach if made generic ?
( hint , most of the spam is still generated in US ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet isnt about geographical borders, and treating it like it is definately will cause collateral damage.
So far most of internet based attacks were done by individuals or groups of individuals not related with government (at least, not directly).
Even If we put a complex (?
) criminal organization instead of a single person behind the biggest botnets, we would not be speaking about countries.
And even if countries try to get a cyberarmy, probably the biggest talents (and so threats) will want to be out of there.Probably a better example could be spam.
Some administrators take as policy ban entire countries because too much spam coming from there.
You think could be some collateral victims in that approach if made generic?
(hint, most of the spam is still generated in US).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294925</id>
	<title>Bangladesh doesn't code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to clear, Bangladesh practically doesn't do any coding [if you consider scale]. On the other hand, poster joking mentioned Bangladesh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clear , Bangladesh practically does n't do any coding [ if you consider scale ] .
On the other hand , poster joking mentioned Bangladesh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clear, Bangladesh practically doesn't do any coding [if you consider scale].
On the other hand, poster joking mentioned Bangladesh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295039</id>
	<title>Re:The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes</title>
	<author>ViennaSt</author>
	<datestamp>1244739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes"</p><p>No no no. It's a series of tubes, powered by hampsters running in rotating wheels. You're right  about these microkernels you speak of--we must "embrace" them, for they are the food that power the hampsters.  With the power of the microkernals, these super hampsters can then secure the internets from "enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material," and soon the internet will become a big truck that you can dump anything on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes " No no no .
It 's a series of tubes , powered by hampsters running in rotating wheels .
You 're right about these microkernels you speak of--we must " embrace " them , for they are the food that power the hampsters .
With the power of the microkernals , these super hampsters can then secure the internets from " enormous amounts of material , enormous amounts of material , " and soon the internet will become a big truck that you can dump anything on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The internet is a bunch of insecure nodes"No no no.
It's a series of tubes, powered by hampsters running in rotating wheels.
You're right  about these microkernels you speak of--we must "embrace" them, for they are the food that power the hampsters.
With the power of the microkernals, these super hampsters can then secure the internets from "enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material," and soon the internet will become a big truck that you can dump anything on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28299079</id>
	<title>Re:I propose the opposite...</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1244753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consequence: in the "good times" when there isn't a bad security situation, then the US-based corporations wind up with costs that are a little higher than their competitors.</p><p>Therefore the competitors win and the US-based corporations go bust.</p><p>When the "bad times" come and there are severe network security problems, well, it's too late by then.</p><p>Will the market be willing to spend a little extra money to buy from a company that has spent more on security which will possibly be worth it in ten to fifteen years? The high-end business market might pay the premium. The low- and middle-end consumer market won't.</p><p>I don't think the free market in general has eyes beyond the next 2-5 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consequence : in the " good times " when there is n't a bad security situation , then the US-based corporations wind up with costs that are a little higher than their competitors.Therefore the competitors win and the US-based corporations go bust.When the " bad times " come and there are severe network security problems , well , it 's too late by then.Will the market be willing to spend a little extra money to buy from a company that has spent more on security which will possibly be worth it in ten to fifteen years ?
The high-end business market might pay the premium .
The low- and middle-end consumer market wo n't.I do n't think the free market in general has eyes beyond the next 2-5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consequence: in the "good times" when there isn't a bad security situation, then the US-based corporations wind up with costs that are a little higher than their competitors.Therefore the competitors win and the US-based corporations go bust.When the "bad times" come and there are severe network security problems, well, it's too late by then.Will the market be willing to spend a little extra money to buy from a company that has spent more on security which will possibly be worth it in ten to fifteen years?
The high-end business market might pay the premium.
The low- and middle-end consumer market won't.I don't think the free market in general has eyes beyond the next 2-5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294727</id>
	<title>Let's be serious here</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1244738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As virtual as the Intertubez are, there still IS a physical layer.  You could have the L33t-est of hackers in Albania, but that's not going to mean a damned thing when a Super Power decides to start surgical strikes on your infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As virtual as the Intertubez are , there still IS a physical layer .
You could have the L33t-est of hackers in Albania , but that 's not going to mean a damned thing when a Super Power decides to start surgical strikes on your infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As virtual as the Intertubez are, there still IS a physical layer.
You could have the L33t-est of hackers in Albania, but that's not going to mean a damned thing when a Super Power decides to start surgical strikes on your infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28307597</id>
	<title>Outsourcing and national security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244819280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont' even get me started on the outsourcing of the IT infra. Suffice it to say that America is sooooo screwed it's beyond help.. it's Too Late for Americans to save their country anymore from a cyber attack that's going to destroy everything you depend on- your banking system, your food distribution system.. etc. etc... the best move to make is to GET OUT before it hits.</p><p>You let your coke snorting Wall Street trash CEOs outsource the CODE YOU RUN YOUR COUNTRY on to persons unknown to companies unknown and certainly neither of those have the same level of interest in not harming America as , say, Americans are expected to have. But you act like that doesn't MEAN anything, like there are no consequences to that fact.</p><p>I love people who get free market "free movement of goods services and people"  in their heads and can't be bothered, typically for ideological reasons, to think about whatr copuld possibly go wrong. Do you really think I can't write code to bring your whole system down when I want and have you never know it until it's too late? Get REAL.</p><p>This country was destroyed by free market junkies and charlatans posing as economists. The reality is, the infrastructure is kept safe because the people in charge of creating had no motivation to do harm. They had no malice of the terroristic variety. You RELY on that being the case. That's the ground you walk on, and intellectually, it's the ground you THINK on.. it's the world you know and reason about and take examples from and have an intuition about. What you don't get is - that's all gone. But you're still reasoning as though it weren't gone. We have NO IDEA of the extent of damage that can be inflicted when code is written by organizations easily penetrated by terrorists. If you don't think the routing and shipping software that maintains sanity in the crazy quilt network of schedules, orders, delivery requests, invoices and warehouse inventory of you FOOD SUPPLY is a matter of grave national security and should be outsourced to the lowest bidder then , well, you're going to get exactly what you ARE going to get, no question. A dissolut\ion of your society. Yeah, the "free market" will take care of everything all right- it's called extinction of the people who left everything to the free market. Yep, that's survival of the fittest alright.</p><p>I love it when I hear politicians say they never saw it coming- who would have thought they'd do THAT?</p><p>Well you read it on Slashdot first. The outsourcing of common programming to whoever slaves their workers the hardest in whatever 2nd or 3rd world hello-hole will bid the lowest is what ultimately brought America down. This is also known as the attack of the no-patriotism Wall Street / CEO coke-snorters or attack of the CATO Institute  thought zombies .</p><p>Your thinking is stuck It's stuck in a time when the people who made the things you depend on thought of themselves as having something fundamental in common with you. All your reasoning is flawed, because that's long gone. And it's probably going to cost you your lives.</p><p>Nothing to worry about here folks, keep up the outsourcing !</p><p>There's way too many "free market " corporotrash greedhead Republicans with way too much power to change anything.</p><p>The worst thing you can say is they WILL lead America into a nightmare twilight of total societal dissolution and finally, destruction.</p><p>The best thing you can say is, it won't last that long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont ' even get me started on the outsourcing of the IT infra .
Suffice it to say that America is sooooo screwed it 's beyond help.. it 's Too Late for Americans to save their country anymore from a cyber attack that 's going to destroy everything you depend on- your banking system , your food distribution system.. etc. etc... the best move to make is to GET OUT before it hits.You let your coke snorting Wall Street trash CEOs outsource the CODE YOU RUN YOUR COUNTRY on to persons unknown to companies unknown and certainly neither of those have the same level of interest in not harming America as , say , Americans are expected to have .
But you act like that does n't MEAN anything , like there are no consequences to that fact.I love people who get free market " free movement of goods services and people " in their heads and ca n't be bothered , typically for ideological reasons , to think about whatr copuld possibly go wrong .
Do you really think I ca n't write code to bring your whole system down when I want and have you never know it until it 's too late ?
Get REAL.This country was destroyed by free market junkies and charlatans posing as economists .
The reality is , the infrastructure is kept safe because the people in charge of creating had no motivation to do harm .
They had no malice of the terroristic variety .
You RELY on that being the case .
That 's the ground you walk on , and intellectually , it 's the ground you THINK on.. it 's the world you know and reason about and take examples from and have an intuition about .
What you do n't get is - that 's all gone .
But you 're still reasoning as though it were n't gone .
We have NO IDEA of the extent of damage that can be inflicted when code is written by organizations easily penetrated by terrorists .
If you do n't think the routing and shipping software that maintains sanity in the crazy quilt network of schedules , orders , delivery requests , invoices and warehouse inventory of you FOOD SUPPLY is a matter of grave national security and should be outsourced to the lowest bidder then , well , you 're going to get exactly what you ARE going to get , no question .
A dissolut \ ion of your society .
Yeah , the " free market " will take care of everything all right- it 's called extinction of the people who left everything to the free market .
Yep , that 's survival of the fittest alright.I love it when I hear politicians say they never saw it coming- who would have thought they 'd do THAT ? Well you read it on Slashdot first .
The outsourcing of common programming to whoever slaves their workers the hardest in whatever 2nd or 3rd world hello-hole will bid the lowest is what ultimately brought America down .
This is also known as the attack of the no-patriotism Wall Street / CEO coke-snorters or attack of the CATO Institute thought zombies .Your thinking is stuck It 's stuck in a time when the people who made the things you depend on thought of themselves as having something fundamental in common with you .
All your reasoning is flawed , because that 's long gone .
And it 's probably going to cost you your lives.Nothing to worry about here folks , keep up the outsourcing ! There 's way too many " free market " corporotrash greedhead Republicans with way too much power to change anything.The worst thing you can say is they WILL lead America into a nightmare twilight of total societal dissolution and finally , destruction.The best thing you can say is , it wo n't last that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont' even get me started on the outsourcing of the IT infra.
Suffice it to say that America is sooooo screwed it's beyond help.. it's Too Late for Americans to save their country anymore from a cyber attack that's going to destroy everything you depend on- your banking system, your food distribution system.. etc. etc... the best move to make is to GET OUT before it hits.You let your coke snorting Wall Street trash CEOs outsource the CODE YOU RUN YOUR COUNTRY on to persons unknown to companies unknown and certainly neither of those have the same level of interest in not harming America as , say, Americans are expected to have.
But you act like that doesn't MEAN anything, like there are no consequences to that fact.I love people who get free market "free movement of goods services and people"  in their heads and can't be bothered, typically for ideological reasons, to think about whatr copuld possibly go wrong.
Do you really think I can't write code to bring your whole system down when I want and have you never know it until it's too late?
Get REAL.This country was destroyed by free market junkies and charlatans posing as economists.
The reality is, the infrastructure is kept safe because the people in charge of creating had no motivation to do harm.
They had no malice of the terroristic variety.
You RELY on that being the case.
That's the ground you walk on, and intellectually, it's the ground you THINK on.. it's the world you know and reason about and take examples from and have an intuition about.
What you don't get is - that's all gone.
But you're still reasoning as though it weren't gone.
We have NO IDEA of the extent of damage that can be inflicted when code is written by organizations easily penetrated by terrorists.
If you don't think the routing and shipping software that maintains sanity in the crazy quilt network of schedules, orders, delivery requests, invoices and warehouse inventory of you FOOD SUPPLY is a matter of grave national security and should be outsourced to the lowest bidder then , well, you're going to get exactly what you ARE going to get, no question.
A dissolut\ion of your society.
Yeah, the "free market" will take care of everything all right- it's called extinction of the people who left everything to the free market.
Yep, that's survival of the fittest alright.I love it when I hear politicians say they never saw it coming- who would have thought they'd do THAT?Well you read it on Slashdot first.
The outsourcing of common programming to whoever slaves their workers the hardest in whatever 2nd or 3rd world hello-hole will bid the lowest is what ultimately brought America down.
This is also known as the attack of the no-patriotism Wall Street / CEO coke-snorters or attack of the CATO Institute  thought zombies .Your thinking is stuck It's stuck in a time when the people who made the things you depend on thought of themselves as having something fundamental in common with you.
All your reasoning is flawed, because that's long gone.
And it's probably going to cost you your lives.Nothing to worry about here folks, keep up the outsourcing !There's way too many "free market " corporotrash greedhead Republicans with way too much power to change anything.The worst thing you can say is they WILL lead America into a nightmare twilight of total societal dissolution and finally, destruction.The best thing you can say is, it won't last that long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294635</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">You would like this then.</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would like this then .
[ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would like this then.
[goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28297595</id>
	<title>Giving the keys to anyone</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1244748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the logical outcome of outsourcing technology. In the USA, we have given our expertise away. After energy shortages, I would have to assess this as THE security risk for us. We won the first Iraq war on our technology. We will lose the next one on our technology, wielded by others.

And of course it was all done to make profits look good for the next quarter so some managerial technopeasant could get their bonus. Indirectly, we were sold out by Wall Street MBAs and a business culture that thinks money is *magic*, and damn the consequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the logical outcome of outsourcing technology .
In the USA , we have given our expertise away .
After energy shortages , I would have to assess this as THE security risk for us .
We won the first Iraq war on our technology .
We will lose the next one on our technology , wielded by others .
And of course it was all done to make profits look good for the next quarter so some managerial technopeasant could get their bonus .
Indirectly , we were sold out by Wall Street MBAs and a business culture that thinks money is * magic * , and damn the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the logical outcome of outsourcing technology.
In the USA, we have given our expertise away.
After energy shortages, I would have to assess this as THE security risk for us.
We won the first Iraq war on our technology.
We will lose the next one on our technology, wielded by others.
And of course it was all done to make profits look good for the next quarter so some managerial technopeasant could get their bonus.
Indirectly, we were sold out by Wall Street MBAs and a business culture that thinks money is *magic*, and damn the consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294483</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1244737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?</p></div><p>That's a great idea, let's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws. And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders ? That 's a great idea , let 's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws .
And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced , we 'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that ( you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?That's a great idea, let's make the UN a real world government with the authority and ability to enforce laws.
And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294497</id>
	<title>A few ways...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1244737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few ways any country can "win" in a cyber-war. For one the wires can be cut, I remember a year or two ago a lot of undersea cables were cut by anchors leaving people with no internet. If you really want to get a country off of the internet, theres a lot more ways of doing it than with DoS attacks. What we really need is a totally global net. One where you can't tell which country the IP is from, one without government control. Its too hard to do this with the current net, but a second internet could easily be born with all these things in place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few ways any country can " win " in a cyber-war .
For one the wires can be cut , I remember a year or two ago a lot of undersea cables were cut by anchors leaving people with no internet .
If you really want to get a country off of the internet , theres a lot more ways of doing it than with DoS attacks .
What we really need is a totally global net .
One where you ca n't tell which country the IP is from , one without government control .
Its too hard to do this with the current net , but a second internet could easily be born with all these things in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few ways any country can "win" in a cyber-war.
For one the wires can be cut, I remember a year or two ago a lot of undersea cables were cut by anchors leaving people with no internet.
If you really want to get a country off of the internet, theres a lot more ways of doing it than with DoS attacks.
What we really need is a totally global net.
One where you can't tell which country the IP is from, one without government control.
Its too hard to do this with the current net, but a second internet could easily be born with all these things in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295071</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1244739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).</p></div><p>And USA and Britain for that matter; another two Nations with a far from flawless Human Rights record. Though if we really wanted point out the irony of the Human Rights Council not only are China, Cuba, USA and the UK on it but it also include; Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, Egypt and Pakistan (and others who I don't really know anything about but I am sure have their share of closeted skeletons).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced , we 'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that ( you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights ) .And USA and Britain for that matter ; another two Nations with a far from flawless Human Rights record .
Though if we really wanted point out the irony of the Human Rights Council not only are China , Cuba , USA and the UK on it but it also include ; Saudi Arabia , Russian Federation , Egypt and Pakistan ( and others who I do n't really know anything about but I am sure have their share of closeted skeletons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to make sure the laws are reasonably and fairly enforced, we'll get the Human Rights Council to oversee that (you know the one that has China and Cuba on it--such fine upstanding respecters of human rights).And USA and Britain for that matter; another two Nations with a far from flawless Human Rights record.
Though if we really wanted point out the irony of the Human Rights Council not only are China, Cuba, USA and the UK on it but it also include; Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, Egypt and Pakistan (and others who I don't really know anything about but I am sure have their share of closeted skeletons).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28297855</id>
	<title>Legalities?</title>
	<author>BCW2</author>
	<datestamp>1244749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the first time someone challenges one of these so called "czars" in court about having no oversight from the Legislative or Judicial branches they will all be ruled Unconstitutional. Which is the correct ruling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the first time someone challenges one of these so called " czars " in court about having no oversight from the Legislative or Judicial branches they will all be ruled Unconstitutional .
Which is the correct ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the first time someone challenges one of these so called "czars" in court about having no oversight from the Legislative or Judicial branches they will all be ruled Unconstitutional.
Which is the correct ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294339</id>
	<title>Arrogant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244737260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might as well say that if China appointed a cyber security "czar" that person should / would be the WORLD czar, too.
<p>
They could probably make a better claim to the WORLD position (after all, it's not like the WORLD series - where only americans take part), having as they do, the great population size and a lot more cyber security already in place.
</p><p>
But then again, I suppose Cringely is pandering to an audience, who just want to be told that they're (still) king of the world - no matter what the reality is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might as well say that if China appointed a cyber security " czar " that person should / would be the WORLD czar , too .
They could probably make a better claim to the WORLD position ( after all , it 's not like the WORLD series - where only americans take part ) , having as they do , the great population size and a lot more cyber security already in place .
But then again , I suppose Cringely is pandering to an audience , who just want to be told that they 're ( still ) king of the world - no matter what the reality is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might as well say that if China appointed a cyber security "czar" that person should / would be the WORLD czar, too.
They could probably make a better claim to the WORLD position (after all, it's not like the WORLD series - where only americans take part), having as they do, the great population size and a lot more cyber security already in place.
But then again, I suppose Cringely is pandering to an audience, who just want to be told that they're (still) king of the world - no matter what the reality is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296583</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots. Outsourcing, offshoring etc irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would win in any given matchup are lowly microbes and viruses (the kind that attack people). Not any countries. no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able microbes. This has been the case all along. US, China, Russia, any of them has been attacked by these germs wantonly, at will. Neither this will change with application of a 'center for disease prevention' or any such absurd officialdom, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of scientists in any country's 'doctor unit'.</p><p>Attacking, afflicting, infecting, health et. al. - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (I'm not talking about colds or flus), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly bugs of any society. Good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'health team'. If one thing is in common in these types, it's their mutual hatred of any kind of medicine.</p><p>Am I one of them? No, but I can appreciate talent, and I can see cold hard truth as it is.</p><p>There, now we have no need to spend anything on health care since in the end, we're all dead. In fact, your argument can be used to deny spending any kind of money and effort on any of society's ills, very effective. I salute you. I also took the liberty of using capitalization and punctuation, I find it helps in reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would win in any given matchup are lowly microbes and viruses ( the kind that attack people ) .
Not any countries .
no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able microbes .
This has been the case all along .
US , China , Russia , any of them has been attacked by these germs wantonly , at will .
Neither this will change with application of a 'center for disease prevention ' or any such absurd officialdom , or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of scientists in any country 's 'doctor unit'.Attacking , afflicting , infecting , health et .
al. - these all require huge talent in their highest levels ( I 'm not talking about colds or flus ) , and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious , unruly bugs of any society .
Good luck to you in recruiting those to any government 's 'health team' .
If one thing is in common in these types , it 's their mutual hatred of any kind of medicine.Am I one of them ?
No , but I can appreciate talent , and I can see cold hard truth as it is.There , now we have no need to spend anything on health care since in the end , we 're all dead .
In fact , your argument can be used to deny spending any kind of money and effort on any of society 's ills , very effective .
I salute you .
I also took the liberty of using capitalization and punctuation , I find it helps in reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would win in any given matchup are lowly microbes and viruses (the kind that attack people).
Not any countries.
no resources a formal government is able to muster can top the able microbes.
This has been the case all along.
US, China, Russia, any of them has been attacked by these germs wantonly, at will.
Neither this will change with application of a 'center for disease prevention' or any such absurd officialdom, or mustering of millions of $ and hundreds of scientists in any country's 'doctor unit'.Attacking, afflicting, infecting, health et.
al. - these all require huge talent in their highest levels (I'm not talking about colds or flus), and curiously this type of talent is found in the most rebellious, unruly bugs of any society.
Good luck to you in recruiting those to any government's 'health team'.
If one thing is in common in these types, it's their mutual hatred of any kind of medicine.Am I one of them?
No, but I can appreciate talent, and I can see cold hard truth as it is.There, now we have no need to spend anything on health care since in the end, we're all dead.
In fact, your argument can be used to deny spending any kind of money and effort on any of society's ills, very effective.
I salute you.
I also took the liberty of using capitalization and punctuation, I find it helps in reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294507</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1244737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?</em> <br>
<br>
I called Princess Peach, My Little Pony and The Care Bears and they're on it.<br>
<br>
Consider it done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders ?
I called Princess Peach , My Little Pony and The Care Bears and they 're on it .
Consider it done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?
I called Princess Peach, My Little Pony and The Care Bears and they're on it.
Consider it done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296867</id>
	<title>Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are very many easy-to-destroy terrorist targets all over the USA which would kill many people or cripple infrastructure for long periods of time. The fact that this doesn't happen continually is a testament to just how few real terrorists there are out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very many easy-to-destroy terrorist targets all over the USA which would kill many people or cripple infrastructure for long periods of time .
The fact that this does n't happen continually is a testament to just how few real terrorists there are out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very many easy-to-destroy terrorist targets all over the USA which would kill many people or cripple infrastructure for long periods of time.
The fact that this doesn't happen continually is a testament to just how few real terrorists there are out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769</id>
	<title>I propose the opposite...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1244738760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of the resources of my nation being used to protect the world.  I would really rather see our Cyber Czar take the opposite approach:</p><p>Secure our stuff, and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems in the way they best see fit.</p><p>This would require a moderate paradigm shift, to be sure, for example:</p><p>1) US-based corps that choose to outsource will need to factor this into their costs.  Perhaps a US-based callcenter, backed by our security efforts, would be a better investment.</p><p>2) The original concept of the 'net would need to be reinstated - where if one or many nodes go down, the bulk of it remains functional.</p><p>3) Vendors inside the US would need to be encouraged to step it up and provide equivalent IT products to those available overseas.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so on, and so on...</p><p>I propose we look at the US in much the way any Security Pro looks at his sponsoring company.  I can't be concerned with securing everyone on my same internet subnet.  That's their deal.  I wouldn't propose to use services and resources on those (presumably unsecured) nodes.  Only my own IP's are my concern.  The opposite is insanity, and is simply not in the best interests of those paying my paycheck.  Same for our government, IMHO.</p><p>Likewise, where exactly in the Constitution is 'policing Pakistan's internet' supported?  Are we still talking about the Commerce Clause?  Because at some point it is going to logically fail.  You can't just keep expanding power without putting paper behind it, unless we're ready to scrap the whole notion of a common set of national guidelines for what our government should and should not be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of the resources of my nation being used to protect the world .
I would really rather see our Cyber Czar take the opposite approach : Secure our stuff , and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems in the way they best see fit.This would require a moderate paradigm shift , to be sure , for example : 1 ) US-based corps that choose to outsource will need to factor this into their costs .
Perhaps a US-based callcenter , backed by our security efforts , would be a better investment.2 ) The original concept of the 'net would need to be reinstated - where if one or many nodes go down , the bulk of it remains functional.3 ) Vendors inside the US would need to be encouraged to step it up and provide equivalent IT products to those available overseas .
...and so on , and so on...I propose we look at the US in much the way any Security Pro looks at his sponsoring company .
I ca n't be concerned with securing everyone on my same internet subnet .
That 's their deal .
I would n't propose to use services and resources on those ( presumably unsecured ) nodes .
Only my own IP 's are my concern .
The opposite is insanity , and is simply not in the best interests of those paying my paycheck .
Same for our government , IMHO.Likewise , where exactly in the Constitution is 'policing Pakistan 's internet ' supported ?
Are we still talking about the Commerce Clause ?
Because at some point it is going to logically fail .
You ca n't just keep expanding power without putting paper behind it , unless we 're ready to scrap the whole notion of a common set of national guidelines for what our government should and should not be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of the resources of my nation being used to protect the world.
I would really rather see our Cyber Czar take the opposite approach:Secure our stuff, and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems in the way they best see fit.This would require a moderate paradigm shift, to be sure, for example:1) US-based corps that choose to outsource will need to factor this into their costs.
Perhaps a US-based callcenter, backed by our security efforts, would be a better investment.2) The original concept of the 'net would need to be reinstated - where if one or many nodes go down, the bulk of it remains functional.3) Vendors inside the US would need to be encouraged to step it up and provide equivalent IT products to those available overseas.
...and so on, and so on...I propose we look at the US in much the way any Security Pro looks at his sponsoring company.
I can't be concerned with securing everyone on my same internet subnet.
That's their deal.
I wouldn't propose to use services and resources on those (presumably unsecured) nodes.
Only my own IP's are my concern.
The opposite is insanity, and is simply not in the best interests of those paying my paycheck.
Same for our government, IMHO.Likewise, where exactly in the Constitution is 'policing Pakistan's internet' supported?
Are we still talking about the Commerce Clause?
Because at some point it is going to logically fail.
You can't just keep expanding power without putting paper behind it, unless we're ready to scrap the whole notion of a common set of national guidelines for what our government should and should not be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295065</id>
	<title>The hell ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1244739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why the HELL are countries connecting their sensitive networks and data to internet ANYWAY ? it doesnt take millions of bucks and hundreds of it people and a 'cybersecurity tzar' to realize that ANYthing sensitive that is connected to internet is hackable, REGARDLESS of you outsource, offshore, implement hard, tight, restrictive internet controls and protocols, or track every move of every goddamn person on the internet or not.</p><p>if you want security, DONT CONNECT YOUR SENSITIVE NETWORKS TO INTERNET. period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why the HELL are countries connecting their sensitive networks and data to internet ANYWAY ?
it doesnt take millions of bucks and hundreds of it people and a 'cybersecurity tzar ' to realize that ANYthing sensitive that is connected to internet is hackable , REGARDLESS of you outsource , offshore , implement hard , tight , restrictive internet controls and protocols , or track every move of every goddamn person on the internet or not.if you want security , DONT CONNECT YOUR SENSITIVE NETWORKS TO INTERNET .
period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the HELL are countries connecting their sensitive networks and data to internet ANYWAY ?
it doesnt take millions of bucks and hundreds of it people and a 'cybersecurity tzar' to realize that ANYthing sensitive that is connected to internet is hackable, REGARDLESS of you outsource, offshore, implement hard, tight, restrictive internet controls and protocols, or track every move of every goddamn person on the internet or not.if you want security, DONT CONNECT YOUR SENSITIVE NETWORKS TO INTERNET.
period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28297523</id>
	<title>pl05 4, Troll)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">be treated by your which aalows</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>be treated by your which aalows [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be treated by your which aalows [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295317</id>
	<title>minus 1, Trol7)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>dead. I7 is a dead</htmltext>
<tokenext>dead .
I7 is a dead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dead.
I7 is a dead</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294559</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1244737980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say it brother! Say it loud! I've been getting nowhere with the idea for many years. I wish you better luck than I have. But the mafia will chase you to the ends of the earth to squash it if it looks like it has the remotest chance of taking hold. To me it would a great step towards acting like truly sentient beings, as opposed to the animals we act like now, pissing on trees to mark our territory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say it brother !
Say it loud !
I 've been getting nowhere with the idea for many years .
I wish you better luck than I have .
But the mafia will chase you to the ends of the earth to squash it if it looks like it has the remotest chance of taking hold .
To me it would a great step towards acting like truly sentient beings , as opposed to the animals we act like now , pissing on trees to mark our territory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say it brother!
Say it loud!
I've been getting nowhere with the idea for many years.
I wish you better luck than I have.
But the mafia will chase you to the ends of the earth to squash it if it looks like it has the remotest chance of taking hold.
To me it would a great step towards acting like truly sentient beings, as opposed to the animals we act like now, pissing on trees to mark our territory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294967</id>
	<title>After a real, 'hot' cyberwar...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1244739540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you will long for bullets, bombs, and nukes.</p><p>It will be nasty beyond measure.  Worse than anything save nukes.</p><p>We need to accept this, and prepare for the inevitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you will long for bullets , bombs , and nukes.It will be nasty beyond measure .
Worse than anything save nukes.We need to accept this , and prepare for the inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you will long for bullets, bombs, and nukes.It will be nasty beyond measure.
Worse than anything save nukes.We need to accept this, and prepare for the inevitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296581</id>
	<title>Re:I propose the opposite...</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any international policing should, by default, be relegated to the world of international politics, which is a very heterogeneous group.</p><p>Any internal policing could, even if we don't want it, be relegated to the dept of Homeland Security (which is oh so wonderful).</p><p>Either way, approaching it by appointing a cyber<b>warfare</b> czar is the wrong way to go; you're just asking for backlash.  I <i>would</i> support a cyber-political appointment though, because it stresses the idea of peace before war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any international policing should , by default , be relegated to the world of international politics , which is a very heterogeneous group.Any internal policing could , even if we do n't want it , be relegated to the dept of Homeland Security ( which is oh so wonderful ) .Either way , approaching it by appointing a cyberwarfare czar is the wrong way to go ; you 're just asking for backlash .
I would support a cyber-political appointment though , because it stresses the idea of peace before war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any international policing should, by default, be relegated to the world of international politics, which is a very heterogeneous group.Any internal policing could, even if we don't want it, be relegated to the dept of Homeland Security (which is oh so wonderful).Either way, approaching it by appointing a cyberwarfare czar is the wrong way to go; you're just asking for backlash.
I would support a cyber-political appointment though, because it stresses the idea of peace before war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294603</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is there really a cyber WAR going on?  Are people dying?  No?  Then I don't want to hear about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is there really a cyber WAR going on ?
Are people dying ?
No ? Then I do n't want to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is there really a cyber WAR going on?
Are people dying?
No?  Then I don't want to hear about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294961</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn moderators are insulting you with the "Funny" mod. They're saying, "Haha, Pull the other one." Eh, conditioned reflex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn moderators are insulting you with the " Funny " mod .
They 're saying , " Haha , Pull the other one .
" Eh , conditioned reflex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn moderators are insulting you with the "Funny" mod.
They're saying, "Haha, Pull the other one.
" Eh, conditioned reflex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296547</id>
	<title>Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1244745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the advantages of cyberwar is the ease of scale.  While sending a few dozen spooks in to photo documents was a major undertaking in the 60s-70s, today you can mount a massive assault on data networks with very little in the way of hard resources.  And one clever guy can do it all.  Botnets give you millions of spooks.</p><p>And data is a real thing, to be dealt with.  Just as a sniper would seed fear and chaos, so also either downing major banking sites or even threatening to hijack nees/finance/government sites would cause similar panic. The recent posting that T-Mobile's data was exposed caused a noticeable amount of concern, and probably increased call volume to their support desks, as well as distracted their security teams.  Add to this several other warnings to other industries, and then everyone else is checking their systems. Good time to unleash the new and unknown attack, for me, as everyone starts by checking the known exploits.</p><p>Everything you would do with a gun or a bomb is just so much more interesting to prevent, detect, and mitigate when done in data.  It's really nasty.</p><p>ps - is it SCADA systems you're thinking of for power distribution?  Needless to say, connecting SCADA to the Internet is begging on your knees to be attacked, and pwned.  Just not acceptable, and it is happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the advantages of cyberwar is the ease of scale .
While sending a few dozen spooks in to photo documents was a major undertaking in the 60s-70s , today you can mount a massive assault on data networks with very little in the way of hard resources .
And one clever guy can do it all .
Botnets give you millions of spooks.And data is a real thing , to be dealt with .
Just as a sniper would seed fear and chaos , so also either downing major banking sites or even threatening to hijack nees/finance/government sites would cause similar panic .
The recent posting that T-Mobile 's data was exposed caused a noticeable amount of concern , and probably increased call volume to their support desks , as well as distracted their security teams .
Add to this several other warnings to other industries , and then everyone else is checking their systems .
Good time to unleash the new and unknown attack , for me , as everyone starts by checking the known exploits.Everything you would do with a gun or a bomb is just so much more interesting to prevent , detect , and mitigate when done in data .
It 's really nasty.ps - is it SCADA systems you 're thinking of for power distribution ?
Needless to say , connecting SCADA to the Internet is begging on your knees to be attacked , and pwned .
Just not acceptable , and it is happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the advantages of cyberwar is the ease of scale.
While sending a few dozen spooks in to photo documents was a major undertaking in the 60s-70s, today you can mount a massive assault on data networks with very little in the way of hard resources.
And one clever guy can do it all.
Botnets give you millions of spooks.And data is a real thing, to be dealt with.
Just as a sniper would seed fear and chaos, so also either downing major banking sites or even threatening to hijack nees/finance/government sites would cause similar panic.
The recent posting that T-Mobile's data was exposed caused a noticeable amount of concern, and probably increased call volume to their support desks, as well as distracted their security teams.
Add to this several other warnings to other industries, and then everyone else is checking their systems.
Good time to unleash the new and unknown attack, for me, as everyone starts by checking the known exploits.Everything you would do with a gun or a bomb is just so much more interesting to prevent, detect, and mitigate when done in data.
It's really nasty.ps - is it SCADA systems you're thinking of for power distribution?
Needless to say, connecting SCADA to the Internet is begging on your knees to be attacked, and pwned.
Just not acceptable, and it is happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295689</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that we trump your sovereignty, it's the fact that you wanted a piece of the pie that we created (and controlled) in the first place.</p><p>Back then, it was simply a business matter.  These days, it shouldn't be treated as such.</p><p>It needs to be treated like a political matter.  You have your territory, and we have ours, just as you have your infrastructure in your country, and we have ours.</p><p>By the way, we aren't the world police if we haven't been acting as such.  3 generations ago, perhaps we did, but our current idea of having a bigger stick isn't about keeping the world's peace, it's about keeping internal peace, which other nations happen to depend on for a sense of their own internal peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that we trump your sovereignty , it 's the fact that you wanted a piece of the pie that we created ( and controlled ) in the first place.Back then , it was simply a business matter .
These days , it should n't be treated as such.It needs to be treated like a political matter .
You have your territory , and we have ours , just as you have your infrastructure in your country , and we have ours.By the way , we are n't the world police if we have n't been acting as such .
3 generations ago , perhaps we did , but our current idea of having a bigger stick is n't about keeping the world 's peace , it 's about keeping internal peace , which other nations happen to depend on for a sense of their own internal peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that we trump your sovereignty, it's the fact that you wanted a piece of the pie that we created (and controlled) in the first place.Back then, it was simply a business matter.
These days, it shouldn't be treated as such.It needs to be treated like a political matter.
You have your territory, and we have ours, just as you have your infrastructure in your country, and we have ours.By the way, we aren't the world police if we haven't been acting as such.
3 generations ago, perhaps we did, but our current idea of having a bigger stick isn't about keeping the world's peace, it's about keeping internal peace, which other nations happen to depend on for a sense of their own internal peace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294479</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28298307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28299079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_1355257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28299079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28295283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28296547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_1355257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28294603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_1355257.28298307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
