<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1524256</id>
	<title>How To Seize a Laptop And Make It Stick</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244824320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton takes a look back at the recent Boston case where <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/24/1141218&amp;tid=146">police seized a student's laptop but had to give it back</a>.
<i>"The EFF was right to argue that police had no right to seize the laptop of a Boston College student who was accused of forging an e-mail from his roommate. But according to the judge's reasoning, the police probably could have gotten away with it, if they had appeared to care more about pursuing the student for downloading pirated movies instead."</i> Click the link for Bennett's analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton takes a look back at the recent Boston case where police seized a student 's laptop but had to give it back .
" The EFF was right to argue that police had no right to seize the laptop of a Boston College student who was accused of forging an e-mail from his roommate .
But according to the judge 's reasoning , the police probably could have gotten away with it , if they had appeared to care more about pursuing the student for downloading pirated movies instead .
" Click the link for Bennett 's analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton takes a look back at the recent Boston case where police seized a student's laptop but had to give it back.
"The EFF was right to argue that police had no right to seize the laptop of a Boston College student who was accused of forging an e-mail from his roommate.
But according to the judge's reasoning, the police probably could have gotten away with it, if they had appeared to care more about pursuing the student for downloading pirated movies instead.
" Click the link for Bennett's analysis.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312943</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1244839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!</p><p>I stopped reading at that point, as it the entire suggestion that <i>paying ticket holders get charged more</i> is absolutely ludicrous.</p><p>Assume that the estimate of 1 million downloads of "Wolverine" are accurate.  Now, I saw it in the theatre.  The ticket price was <i>exactly the same</i> as all of the other movies opening this summer.  There was no "piracy surcharge" or anything else like that, so the suggestion that theatre goers make up some sort of "shortfall" is provably false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you ! I stopped reading at that point , as it the entire suggestion that paying ticket holders get charged more is absolutely ludicrous.Assume that the estimate of 1 million downloads of " Wolverine " are accurate .
Now , I saw it in the theatre .
The ticket price was exactly the same as all of the other movies opening this summer .
There was no " piracy surcharge " or anything else like that , so the suggestion that theatre goers make up some sort of " shortfall " is provably false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!I stopped reading at that point, as it the entire suggestion that paying ticket holders get charged more is absolutely ludicrous.Assume that the estimate of 1 million downloads of "Wolverine" are accurate.
Now, I saw it in the theatre.
The ticket price was exactly the same as all of the other movies opening this summer.
There was no "piracy surcharge" or anything else like that, so the suggestion that theatre goers make up some sort of "shortfall" is provably false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311067</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't speed and be drunk</i></p><p>Wait, what?  I thought it was while transporting bodies that we weren't supposed to speed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't speed and be drunkWait , what ?
I thought it was while transporting bodies that we were n't supposed to speed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't speed and be drunkWait, what?
I thought it was while transporting bodies that we weren't supposed to speed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313543</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Officer to the driver: Sir, you were the millionth car who crossed this bridge. Here is your prize of $10000. What are you going to do with that money?<br>
Driver: I will finally buy the driving license.<br>
Wife:  Do not listen to him, he is just drunk.<br>
Mother in law: Didn't I tell you that you would not get far on the stolen car?<br>
A voice from the trunk: Did we cross the border yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Officer to the driver : Sir , you were the millionth car who crossed this bridge .
Here is your prize of $ 10000 .
What are you going to do with that money ?
Driver : I will finally buy the driving license .
Wife : Do not listen to him , he is just drunk .
Mother in law : Did n't I tell you that you would not get far on the stolen car ?
A voice from the trunk : Did we cross the border yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Officer to the driver: Sir, you were the millionth car who crossed this bridge.
Here is your prize of $10000.
What are you going to do with that money?
Driver: I will finally buy the driving license.
Wife:  Do not listen to him, he is just drunk.
Mother in law: Didn't I tell you that you would not get far on the stolen car?
A voice from the trunk: Did we cross the border yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311489</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>itsthesmell</author>
	<datestamp>1244834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose, as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, meaning that, at the time of warrant execution, officers believed that their warrant was valid. If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case, but no one is claiming that that occurred. The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory, but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred. The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge. If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime, then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose , as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith , meaning that , at the time of warrant execution , officers believed that their warrant was valid .
If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case , but no one is claiming that that occurred .
The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant .
You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory , but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred .
The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge .
If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime , then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose, as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, meaning that, at the time of warrant execution, officers believed that their warrant was valid.
If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case, but no one is claiming that that occurred.
The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant.
You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory, but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred.
The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge.
If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime, then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309863</id>
	<title>Fuck you Linus you destroyed my computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the desktop yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with , especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311607</id>
	<title>Re:Encrypt, encrypt!!!!</title>
	<author>Arkham</author>
	<datestamp>1244834880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption doesn't protect you from the legal system.  It may physically keep them out, but once a judge orders you to provide the password and you refuse, you get to go to jail until you comply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption does n't protect you from the legal system .
It may physically keep them out , but once a judge orders you to provide the password and you refuse , you get to go to jail until you comply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption doesn't protect you from the legal system.
It may physically keep them out, but once a judge orders you to provide the password and you refuse, you get to go to jail until you comply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28318523</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244889780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't follow, and you know it. Corporations have been stealing under the protection of the law from your average citizen for a long time. And even if what they do isn't covered by a law they bought, they still won't get punished. If they get some sort of punishment, they'll be let of easy. Your average citizen will go to prison or get a life debilitating fine for the same thing a corporation gets a naughty naughty with advise to be less blatant next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't follow , and you know it .
Corporations have been stealing under the protection of the law from your average citizen for a long time .
And even if what they do is n't covered by a law they bought , they still wo n't get punished .
If they get some sort of punishment , they 'll be let of easy .
Your average citizen will go to prison or get a life debilitating fine for the same thing a corporation gets a naughty naughty with advise to be less blatant next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't follow, and you know it.
Corporations have been stealing under the protection of the law from your average citizen for a long time.
And even if what they do isn't covered by a law they bought, they still won't get punished.
If they get some sort of punishment, they'll be let of easy.
Your average citizen will go to prison or get a life debilitating fine for the same thing a corporation gets a naughty naughty with advise to be less blatant next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311993</id>
	<title>Re:Fishing recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly what almost happened to me a few years ago.  I'd been fired from a sysadmin position (for foolishly telling my boss he was a prick) and several weeks later, the company's systems were cracked, bad enough that they alerted the Feds.  The cracked box was a system I'd never even had access to, but as soon as the investigators heard about a "disgruntled former employee" they got my address and showed up at my front door.  There I was on the front porch, completely innocent of the crime they were investigating... but behind me on my media server inside were a couple dozen movies ripped from Blockbuster DVDs that I wanted to watch one more time before deleting them, and a fair amount of bulk-downloaded porn that (statisticly speaking) probably included some subjects under 18.  Fortunately I was able to provide enough circumstantial evidence of my innocence of the cracking incident that they didn't pursue searching my home network, and they left me alone.  If they hadn't, I'd eventually be found not guilty of the cracking, but in the meantime I'd lose all of my gear, and I'd still end up on the MPAA's hit list and probably a registered sex offender because the initial - unwarranted and warrantless - accusation got them in the door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what almost happened to me a few years ago .
I 'd been fired from a sysadmin position ( for foolishly telling my boss he was a prick ) and several weeks later , the company 's systems were cracked , bad enough that they alerted the Feds .
The cracked box was a system I 'd never even had access to , but as soon as the investigators heard about a " disgruntled former employee " they got my address and showed up at my front door .
There I was on the front porch , completely innocent of the crime they were investigating... but behind me on my media server inside were a couple dozen movies ripped from Blockbuster DVDs that I wanted to watch one more time before deleting them , and a fair amount of bulk-downloaded porn that ( statisticly speaking ) probably included some subjects under 18 .
Fortunately I was able to provide enough circumstantial evidence of my innocence of the cracking incident that they did n't pursue searching my home network , and they left me alone .
If they had n't , I 'd eventually be found not guilty of the cracking , but in the meantime I 'd lose all of my gear , and I 'd still end up on the MPAA 's hit list and probably a registered sex offender because the initial - unwarranted and warrantless - accusation got them in the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what almost happened to me a few years ago.
I'd been fired from a sysadmin position (for foolishly telling my boss he was a prick) and several weeks later, the company's systems were cracked, bad enough that they alerted the Feds.
The cracked box was a system I'd never even had access to, but as soon as the investigators heard about a "disgruntled former employee" they got my address and showed up at my front door.
There I was on the front porch, completely innocent of the crime they were investigating... but behind me on my media server inside were a couple dozen movies ripped from Blockbuster DVDs that I wanted to watch one more time before deleting them, and a fair amount of bulk-downloaded porn that (statisticly speaking) probably included some subjects under 18.
Fortunately I was able to provide enough circumstantial evidence of my innocence of the cracking incident that they didn't pursue searching my home network, and they left me alone.
If they hadn't, I'd eventually be found not guilty of the cracking, but in the meantime I'd lose all of my gear, and I'd still end up on the MPAA's hit list and probably a registered sex offender because the initial - unwarranted and warrantless - accusation got them in the door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314337</id>
	<title>Calling someone "Gay" is a crime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how it works in Mass., the other 15 states where I've lived, boys call other boys "gay", "fagots" and "queer" all the time. It isn't usually a bonding experience either.</p><p>So, I could have sued someone every time I was called gay? Crap! I'd be rich!<br>OTOH, I would have been sued 2x more for all the times I called them fagots back.</p><p>In college, I was in a fraternity that had an openly gay president. The fraternity wasn't gay, we liked everyone.  I was approached by someone who was gay to uncover whether I was interested or not. "No thanks" and that was the end of it. For the next 20+ years, these have been some of my best friends in the world.</p><p>I'm in my 40s, single, fit, and a nice dresser and no, I'm not gay.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how it works in Mass. , the other 15 states where I 've lived , boys call other boys " gay " , " fagots " and " queer " all the time .
It is n't usually a bonding experience either.So , I could have sued someone every time I was called gay ?
Crap ! I 'd be rich ! OTOH , I would have been sued 2x more for all the times I called them fagots back.In college , I was in a fraternity that had an openly gay president .
The fraternity was n't gay , we liked everyone .
I was approached by someone who was gay to uncover whether I was interested or not .
" No thanks " and that was the end of it .
For the next 20 + years , these have been some of my best friends in the world.I 'm in my 40s , single , fit , and a nice dresser and no , I 'm not gay .
Not that there 's anything wrong with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how it works in Mass., the other 15 states where I've lived, boys call other boys "gay", "fagots" and "queer" all the time.
It isn't usually a bonding experience either.So, I could have sued someone every time I was called gay?
Crap! I'd be rich!OTOH, I would have been sued 2x more for all the times I called them fagots back.In college, I was in a fraternity that had an openly gay president.
The fraternity wasn't gay, we liked everyone.
I was approached by someone who was gay to uncover whether I was interested or not.
"No thanks" and that was the end of it.
For the next 20+ years, these have been some of my best friends in the world.I'm in my 40s, single, fit, and a nice dresser and no, I'm not gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310387</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1244830200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it works that way.  Just because a warrant was later found to be invalid does not necessarily mean the police were acting illegally.  I think the judge would say that as long as the police were acting "in good faith" or whatever, then they can't be touched.  Unless of course they did something totally heinous or overreaching, in which case the warrant issue would have nothing to do with it.  Also, I think I should point out that in general, the legality of the police actions and the admissibility of any evidence found are two separate issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it works that way .
Just because a warrant was later found to be invalid does not necessarily mean the police were acting illegally .
I think the judge would say that as long as the police were acting " in good faith " or whatever , then they ca n't be touched .
Unless of course they did something totally heinous or overreaching , in which case the warrant issue would have nothing to do with it .
Also , I think I should point out that in general , the legality of the police actions and the admissibility of any evidence found are two separate issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it works that way.
Just because a warrant was later found to be invalid does not necessarily mean the police were acting illegally.
I think the judge would say that as long as the police were acting "in good faith" or whatever, then they can't be touched.
Unless of course they did something totally heinous or overreaching, in which case the warrant issue would have nothing to do with it.
Also, I think I should point out that in general, the legality of the police actions and the admissibility of any evidence found are two separate issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311459</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[...] means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room, the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers."</p><p>Because of course the student would have spent 12 days and $2000 in the theater, if he hadn't downloaded those "200+ movies".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room , the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers .
" Because of course the student would have spent 12 days and $ 2000 in the theater , if he had n't downloaded those " 200 + movies " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room, the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers.
"Because of course the student would have spent 12 days and $2000 in the theater, if he hadn't downloaded those "200+ movies".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937</id>
	<title>tl;dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Follow the old adage: If you are going to break a law, only break one law at a time.</p><p>Don't speed and be drunk<br>Don't deal drugs and forge your taxes<br>Don't pretext to be someone else and have copyright infringing material on the same machine.</p><p>(P.S. I know, I know. he didn't break the law. I'm just sayin'.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow the old adage : If you are going to break a law , only break one law at a time.Do n't speed and be drunkDo n't deal drugs and forge your taxesDo n't pretext to be someone else and have copyright infringing material on the same machine. ( P.S .
I know , I know .
he did n't break the law .
I 'm just sayin' .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow the old adage: If you are going to break a law, only break one law at a time.Don't speed and be drunkDon't deal drugs and forge your taxesDon't pretext to be someone else and have copyright infringing material on the same machine.(P.S.
I know, I know.
he didn't break the law.
I'm just sayin'.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310187</id>
	<title>ohnoitsbennett</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we get Jon Katz back instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we get Jon Katz back instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we get Jon Katz back instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311063</id>
	<title>I don't understand this</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
IANAL, which may be painfully obvious to those who are.
</p><p>
I thought that the idea of a search warrant is that the police submit evidence of a crime to a judge, and while the evidence doesn't have to be enough to convict it does have to meet a certain level of credibility.
</p><p>
This means, that to get a warrant to search a laptop based on copied movies, I'd think there'd have to be at least a little evidence of a crime, which would presumably be felony infringement (which is significantly more than having one unauthorized copy of a movie) and there would have to be some evidence, so one person seeing one movie on my laptop that wasn't legally available on DVD wouldn't hit the criterion.  Seeing one movie on my laptop that was available on DVD would indicate nothing at all, of course, since there's no reason to think it wasn' t there legally.
</p><p>
Changing grades is presumably a crime in most states, but the police would have to have something beyond speculation.  Presumably, also, the best means of investigation would be to check computer records against paper ones, and talk to the teachers of the classes in question.
</p><p>
That means that I don't understand why I should be afraid of anything based on this.  So, search warrants are sometimes erroneously issued, as this one was, but that's nothing new.  The police tried to make a claim based on what they might have been after, and the court ruled they hadn't gotten enough information, as in hadn't investigated enough, to meet search warrant requirements.  If the police investigate, they'll have to come up with evidence.  I don't see a judge issuing a search warrant without some sound evidence, and I don't think "we can't get the evidence one way or another" is going to qualify.
</p><p>
So, it looks to me like this is just hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , which may be painfully obvious to those who are .
I thought that the idea of a search warrant is that the police submit evidence of a crime to a judge , and while the evidence does n't have to be enough to convict it does have to meet a certain level of credibility .
This means , that to get a warrant to search a laptop based on copied movies , I 'd think there 'd have to be at least a little evidence of a crime , which would presumably be felony infringement ( which is significantly more than having one unauthorized copy of a movie ) and there would have to be some evidence , so one person seeing one movie on my laptop that was n't legally available on DVD would n't hit the criterion .
Seeing one movie on my laptop that was available on DVD would indicate nothing at all , of course , since there 's no reason to think it wasn ' t there legally .
Changing grades is presumably a crime in most states , but the police would have to have something beyond speculation .
Presumably , also , the best means of investigation would be to check computer records against paper ones , and talk to the teachers of the classes in question .
That means that I do n't understand why I should be afraid of anything based on this .
So , search warrants are sometimes erroneously issued , as this one was , but that 's nothing new .
The police tried to make a claim based on what they might have been after , and the court ruled they had n't gotten enough information , as in had n't investigated enough , to meet search warrant requirements .
If the police investigate , they 'll have to come up with evidence .
I do n't see a judge issuing a search warrant without some sound evidence , and I do n't think " we ca n't get the evidence one way or another " is going to qualify .
So , it looks to me like this is just hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
IANAL, which may be painfully obvious to those who are.
I thought that the idea of a search warrant is that the police submit evidence of a crime to a judge, and while the evidence doesn't have to be enough to convict it does have to meet a certain level of credibility.
This means, that to get a warrant to search a laptop based on copied movies, I'd think there'd have to be at least a little evidence of a crime, which would presumably be felony infringement (which is significantly more than having one unauthorized copy of a movie) and there would have to be some evidence, so one person seeing one movie on my laptop that wasn't legally available on DVD wouldn't hit the criterion.
Seeing one movie on my laptop that was available on DVD would indicate nothing at all, of course, since there's no reason to think it wasn' t there legally.
Changing grades is presumably a crime in most states, but the police would have to have something beyond speculation.
Presumably, also, the best means of investigation would be to check computer records against paper ones, and talk to the teachers of the classes in question.
That means that I don't understand why I should be afraid of anything based on this.
So, search warrants are sometimes erroneously issued, as this one was, but that's nothing new.
The police tried to make a claim based on what they might have been after, and the court ruled they hadn't gotten enough information, as in hadn't investigated enough, to meet search warrant requirements.
If the police investigate, they'll have to come up with evidence.
I don't see a judge issuing a search warrant without some sound evidence, and I don't think "we can't get the evidence one way or another" is going to qualify.
So, it looks to me like this is just hype.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314401</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1244802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen? its ridiculous and very wrong.</p></div><p>If everyone is to be treated as equal before the law, then fraud is fraud, no matter the perpetrator, no matter the victim, no matter the amount of harm done. That's not bias at all; in fact, it's the opposite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen ?
its ridiculous and very wrong.If everyone is to be treated as equal before the law , then fraud is fraud , no matter the perpetrator , no matter the victim , no matter the amount of harm done .
That 's not bias at all ; in fact , it 's the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen?
its ridiculous and very wrong.If everyone is to be treated as equal before the law, then fraud is fraud, no matter the perpetrator, no matter the victim, no matter the amount of harm done.
That's not bias at all; in fact, it's the opposite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043</id>
	<title>Fishing recipe</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1244828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a great warrant-free recipe for convictions:<br>
1) Seize computers from random people on flimsy grounds that you know will  be thrown out.<br>
2) ????  (Go fishing through their hard drives for evidence of actual crimes.)<br>
3) Prosecute!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a great warrant-free recipe for convictions : 1 ) Seize computers from random people on flimsy grounds that you know will be thrown out .
2 ) ? ? ? ?
( Go fishing through their hard drives for evidence of actual crimes .
) 3 ) Prosecute !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a great warrant-free recipe for convictions:
1) Seize computers from random people on flimsy grounds that you know will  be thrown out.
2) ????
(Go fishing through their hard drives for evidence of actual crimes.
)
3) Prosecute!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311565</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>cyber-dragon.net</author>
	<datestamp>1244834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the best he can do is make all the evidence inadmissible in court.</p><p>The police had a warrant, which at least in the US means signed by a judge. That is all the police need to be protected. The fact it was found to be faulty later means nothing they found can be used, and they have to give it back and say their sorry, but at the time of the activity it was perfectly legal. No recourse available.</p><p>The judge who signed it has been embarrassed, and the police annoyed, that is as much vindication as he can get at this point.</p><p>IMHO this is a case of checks and balances in the system working. Sure they should have worked sooner, but they did work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the best he can do is make all the evidence inadmissible in court.The police had a warrant , which at least in the US means signed by a judge .
That is all the police need to be protected .
The fact it was found to be faulty later means nothing they found can be used , and they have to give it back and say their sorry , but at the time of the activity it was perfectly legal .
No recourse available.The judge who signed it has been embarrassed , and the police annoyed , that is as much vindication as he can get at this point.IMHO this is a case of checks and balances in the system working .
Sure they should have worked sooner , but they did work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the best he can do is make all the evidence inadmissible in court.The police had a warrant, which at least in the US means signed by a judge.
That is all the police need to be protected.
The fact it was found to be faulty later means nothing they found can be used, and they have to give it back and say their sorry, but at the time of the activity it was perfectly legal.
No recourse available.The judge who signed it has been embarrassed, and the police annoyed, that is as much vindication as he can get at this point.IMHO this is a case of checks and balances in the system working.
Sure they should have worked sooner, but they did work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312903</id>
	<title>Who needs a hero?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have "Miranda Warnings" due to a case involving an armed robber/kidnapper/rapist named Miranda, certainly no civil liberties hero.</p><p>So if we get this covered because of Calixte being a jackass, that is ok by me, we still win without making him a hero</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have " Miranda Warnings " due to a case involving an armed robber/kidnapper/rapist named Miranda , certainly no civil liberties hero.So if we get this covered because of Calixte being a jackass , that is ok by me , we still win without making him a hero</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have "Miranda Warnings" due to a case involving an armed robber/kidnapper/rapist named Miranda, certainly no civil liberties hero.So if we get this covered because of Calixte being a jackass, that is ok by me, we still win without making him a hero</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310311</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Al Capone, is that you?
How is that posting flamebait?  I think the logic is sound.
If you are going to break an inane or unenforceable law, Don't break other laws that draw attention to yourself or give the authorities an easier way to get you convicted.  The only way I can see that post as flamebait is if the moderator got caught drunk driving AND the post was directed at him personally.  Or maybe you just have something against slashdot's newest member, Anonymous Cowardon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Capone , is that you ?
How is that posting flamebait ?
I think the logic is sound .
If you are going to break an inane or unenforceable law , Do n't break other laws that draw attention to yourself or give the authorities an easier way to get you convicted .
The only way I can see that post as flamebait is if the moderator got caught drunk driving AND the post was directed at him personally .
Or maybe you just have something against slashdot 's newest member , Anonymous Cowardon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Capone, is that you?
How is that posting flamebait?
I think the logic is sound.
If you are going to break an inane or unenforceable law, Don't break other laws that draw attention to yourself or give the authorities an easier way to get you convicted.
The only way I can see that post as flamebait is if the moderator got caught drunk driving AND the post was directed at him personally.
Or maybe you just have something against slashdot's newest member, Anonymous Cowardon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313465</id>
	<title>who is that Cowardon guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, it's my. My bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , it 's my .
My bad : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, it's my.
My bad :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045</id>
	<title>Pr0n</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1244828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive, the outcome could be pretty sticky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive , the outcome could be pretty sticky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive, the outcome could be pretty sticky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311309</id>
	<title>Re:Encrypt, encrypt!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hey can't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you. But, of course, you do recall how forgetful you are? Or did you forget!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>Can't do anything?</p><p>Mr. Flajann,</p><p>I regret to inform you that you are required to provide any and all passwords to law enforcement officers upon request, and that forgetting a passphrase is in violation of Section 3, Paragraph 6 of the "Keep our Kids Safe from Internet Predators Act." The minimum sentence is 5 years imprisonment. In the future, I suggest you not use encryption if you want to avoid jail time.</p><p>Ignorance of the password is not an excuse.</p><p>Reginald T. Wheeble, Internet Cop</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey ca n't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you .
But , of course , you do recall how forgetful you are ?
Or did you forget !
: - ) Ca n't do anything ? Mr .
Flajann,I regret to inform you that you are required to provide any and all passwords to law enforcement officers upon request , and that forgetting a passphrase is in violation of Section 3 , Paragraph 6 of the " Keep our Kids Safe from Internet Predators Act .
" The minimum sentence is 5 years imprisonment .
In the future , I suggest you not use encryption if you want to avoid jail time.Ignorance of the password is not an excuse.Reginald T. Wheeble , Internet Cop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey can't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you.
But, of course, you do recall how forgetful you are?
Or did you forget!
:-)Can't do anything?Mr.
Flajann,I regret to inform you that you are required to provide any and all passwords to law enforcement officers upon request, and that forgetting a passphrase is in violation of Section 3, Paragraph 6 of the "Keep our Kids Safe from Internet Predators Act.
" The minimum sentence is 5 years imprisonment.
In the future, I suggest you not use encryption if you want to avoid jail time.Ignorance of the password is not an excuse.Reginald T. Wheeble, Internet Cop
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313993</id>
	<title>Re:Police Use Resources at Their Discretion YES!</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1244800440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Blue rotor syndrome:" one part blew that way, the other part blew the other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Blue rotor syndrome : " one part blew that way , the other part blew the other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Blue rotor syndrome:" one part blew that way, the other part blew the other way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311345</id>
	<title>Re:Encrypt, encrypt!!!!</title>
	<author>Starvingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obligatory XCKD

<a href="http://xkcd.com/538/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/538/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory XCKD http : //xkcd.com/538/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory XCKD

http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</id>
	<title>My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first think I would do in this guy's situation is to sue the city under the premise that since the search warrant was illegal, all activities flowing from the warrant were performed outside of the city's normal police powers. Since the activities were carried out without any authorized police powers, they were also carried out without the normal protections granted police during the lawful execution of their duties.</p><p>Potential charges would be:</p><p>1) Breaking and entering.<br>2) Trespassing.<br>3) Illegal search and seizure.<br>4) Theft of personal property.<br>5) Possession of stolen property.<br>6) Vandalism.<br>7) Unlawful entry.<br>8) False arrest.<br>9) False imprisonment (note that this doesn't require actually being jailed).<br>10) Dereliction of duty.</p><p>The next two would also be levied against whatever organization the city hired to peruse through my files:</p><p>11) Unauthorized access to a computing device.<br>12) Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism (my user and root passwords).</p><p>I'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first think I would do in this guy 's situation is to sue the city under the premise that since the search warrant was illegal , all activities flowing from the warrant were performed outside of the city 's normal police powers .
Since the activities were carried out without any authorized police powers , they were also carried out without the normal protections granted police during the lawful execution of their duties.Potential charges would be : 1 ) Breaking and entering.2 ) Trespassing.3 ) Illegal search and seizure.4 ) Theft of personal property.5 ) Possession of stolen property.6 ) Vandalism.7 ) Unlawful entry.8 ) False arrest.9 ) False imprisonment ( note that this does n't require actually being jailed ) .10 ) Dereliction of duty.The next two would also be levied against whatever organization the city hired to peruse through my files : 11 ) Unauthorized access to a computing device.12 ) Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism ( my user and root passwords ) .I 'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first think I would do in this guy's situation is to sue the city under the premise that since the search warrant was illegal, all activities flowing from the warrant were performed outside of the city's normal police powers.
Since the activities were carried out without any authorized police powers, they were also carried out without the normal protections granted police during the lawful execution of their duties.Potential charges would be:1) Breaking and entering.2) Trespassing.3) Illegal search and seizure.4) Theft of personal property.5) Possession of stolen property.6) Vandalism.7) Unlawful entry.8) False arrest.9) False imprisonment (note that this doesn't require actually being jailed).10) Dereliction of duty.The next two would also be levied against whatever organization the city hired to peruse through my files:11) Unauthorized access to a computing device.12) Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism (my user and root passwords).I'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28319043</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1244899080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if you pass a law against being a dick, we'll all end up in jail at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if you pass a law against being a dick , we 'll all end up in jail at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if you pass a law against being a dick, we'll all end up in jail at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312711</id>
	<title>Fruit of the poison tree</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244838780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the testimony of somebody who is already extremely pissed off at you for "outing" him online should be believed with regard to other "crimes" committed with your computer? Seems to me his roommate had every reason to lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the testimony of somebody who is already extremely pissed off at you for " outing " him online should be believed with regard to other " crimes " committed with your computer ?
Seems to me his roommate had every reason to lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the testimony of somebody who is already extremely pissed off at you for "outing" him online should be believed with regard to other "crimes" committed with your computer?
Seems to me his roommate had every reason to lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</id>
	<title>Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>Captain\_Carnage</author>
	<datestamp>1244829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Even downloading movies, which we tend to think of as a more victimless crime, means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room, the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers.</p> </div><p>I find this statement to be utterly false.  The movie industry releases hundreds of movies per year; some of the movies do hundreds of millions of dollars in business, some do at most a few million dollars, or even less.  So how do you define "shortfall" as used above?  The movie industry (and apparently the contributor) apparently assume that anyone who downloads a movie illegally <i>would have been willing to pay $10 to see it legally</i>, if downloading it were not an option.  If you downloaded 200 movies over a month's time (or even a few months time), that's $2,000 worth of movie tickets... How many people are really willing to spend that much on movie tickets, in a month or even a few months?  How many college students watching illegally downloaded movies in their dorm room have $2,000 a month/semester/whatever to spend on movie tickets?  Or for that matter, time to watch them?  The idea that every illegally downloaded movie represents a shortfall to the movie industry is absolutely absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even downloading movies , which we tend to think of as a more victimless crime , means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room , the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers .
I find this statement to be utterly false .
The movie industry releases hundreds of movies per year ; some of the movies do hundreds of millions of dollars in business , some do at most a few million dollars , or even less .
So how do you define " shortfall " as used above ?
The movie industry ( and apparently the contributor ) apparently assume that anyone who downloads a movie illegally would have been willing to pay $ 10 to see it legally , if downloading it were not an option .
If you downloaded 200 movies over a month 's time ( or even a few months time ) , that 's $ 2,000 worth of movie tickets... How many people are really willing to spend that much on movie tickets , in a month or even a few months ?
How many college students watching illegally downloaded movies in their dorm room have $ 2,000 a month/semester/whatever to spend on movie tickets ?
Or for that matter , time to watch them ?
The idea that every illegally downloaded movie represents a shortfall to the movie industry is absolutely absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Even downloading movies, which we tend to think of as a more victimless crime, means that for every dollar saved by someone watching a movie for free in their dorm room, the shortfall has to be made up by paying ticket buyers.
I find this statement to be utterly false.
The movie industry releases hundreds of movies per year; some of the movies do hundreds of millions of dollars in business, some do at most a few million dollars, or even less.
So how do you define "shortfall" as used above?
The movie industry (and apparently the contributor) apparently assume that anyone who downloads a movie illegally would have been willing to pay $10 to see it legally, if downloading it were not an option.
If you downloaded 200 movies over a month's time (or even a few months time), that's $2,000 worth of movie tickets... How many people are really willing to spend that much on movie tickets, in a month or even a few months?
How many college students watching illegally downloaded movies in their dorm room have $2,000 a month/semester/whatever to spend on movie tickets?
Or for that matter, time to watch them?
The idea that every illegally downloaded movie represents a shortfall to the movie industry is absolutely absurd.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312557</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>ultraexactzz</author>
	<datestamp>1244838240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the trick, though... if the Warrant is valid and the police officer executing it has reason to believe in good faith that the warrant is valid, then he can execute it and proceed. The fact that the warrant is declared invalid later doesn't mean that the officer wasn't acting in good faith. If the officer knew the warrant to be BS, and executed it anyway, then it's his ass - but that's another story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the trick , though... if the Warrant is valid and the police officer executing it has reason to believe in good faith that the warrant is valid , then he can execute it and proceed .
The fact that the warrant is declared invalid later does n't mean that the officer was n't acting in good faith .
If the officer knew the warrant to be BS , and executed it anyway , then it 's his ass - but that 's another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the trick, though... if the Warrant is valid and the police officer executing it has reason to believe in good faith that the warrant is valid, then he can execute it and proceed.
The fact that the warrant is declared invalid later doesn't mean that the officer wasn't acting in good faith.
If the officer knew the warrant to be BS, and executed it anyway, then it's his ass - but that's another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310025</id>
	<title>Just Great...</title>
	<author>Suisho</author>
	<datestamp>1244828700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because one pathetic excuse doesn't work, try another to do an unlawful seizure. Its like saying "I *think* you might possibly have stolen goods in your house, so I'm going to take couch to make sure it isn't stolen." yeah, that doesn't go over well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because one pathetic excuse does n't work , try another to do an unlawful seizure .
Its like saying " I * think * you might possibly have stolen goods in your house , so I 'm going to take couch to make sure it is n't stolen .
" yeah , that does n't go over well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because one pathetic excuse doesn't work, try another to do an unlawful seizure.
Its like saying "I *think* you might possibly have stolen goods in your house, so I'm going to take couch to make sure it isn't stolen.
" yeah, that doesn't go over well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311943</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused: he was hacking!</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1244836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades? Should that not have been the police's main concern? Isn't that a significantly bigger crime than the others? Shouldn't the school have been interested in this? "Hello Police, I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket. Oh, and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun." "Thank you sir, we'll get right on that loitering thing."</p></div><p>You didn't actually read this properly weeks ago when it came up the first time. His roommate told the police "I saw him doing this stuff". That was it. No details whatsoever. He didn't even tell them \_where\_ he allegedly saw him breaking the the school computer. And now comes the judge with a sharp mind and says: Wait a second, you haven't even got an idea where this happened? So you haven't got any idea whether he used a computer in one of the school labs, or his own laptop? Well, in that case, you can't seize his laptop (or any of the computers at his home), because you don't have the foggiest idea whether there is the slightest bit of evidence on any of the computers at his home that could you help solving this crime - if it ever happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades ?
Should that not have been the police 's main concern ?
Is n't that a significantly bigger crime than the others ?
Should n't the school have been interested in this ?
" Hello Police , I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket .
Oh , and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun .
" " Thank you sir , we 'll get right on that loitering thing .
" You did n't actually read this properly weeks ago when it came up the first time .
His roommate told the police " I saw him doing this stuff " .
That was it .
No details whatsoever .
He did n't even tell them \ _where \ _ he allegedly saw him breaking the the school computer .
And now comes the judge with a sharp mind and says : Wait a second , you have n't even got an idea where this happened ?
So you have n't got any idea whether he used a computer in one of the school labs , or his own laptop ?
Well , in that case , you ca n't seize his laptop ( or any of the computers at his home ) , because you do n't have the foggiest idea whether there is the slightest bit of evidence on any of the computers at his home that could you help solving this crime - if it ever happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades?
Should that not have been the police's main concern?
Isn't that a significantly bigger crime than the others?
Shouldn't the school have been interested in this?
"Hello Police, I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket.
Oh, and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun.
" "Thank you sir, we'll get right on that loitering thing.
"You didn't actually read this properly weeks ago when it came up the first time.
His roommate told the police "I saw him doing this stuff".
That was it.
No details whatsoever.
He didn't even tell them \_where\_ he allegedly saw him breaking the the school computer.
And now comes the judge with a sharp mind and says: Wait a second, you haven't even got an idea where this happened?
So you haven't got any idea whether he used a computer in one of the school labs, or his own laptop?
Well, in that case, you can't seize his laptop (or any of the computers at his home), because you don't have the foggiest idea whether there is the slightest bit of evidence on any of the computers at his home that could you help solving this crime - if it ever happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309833</id>
	<title>Simple answer:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power glue.</p><p>Yields also sticky first posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power glue.Yields also sticky first posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power glue.Yields also sticky first posts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310065</id>
	<title>Moral of the Story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hide your shit better.  Keep the laptop pristine and use a live cd + usb drive for your nefarious stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hide your shit better .
Keep the laptop pristine and use a live cd + usb drive for your nefarious stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hide your shit better.
Keep the laptop pristine and use a live cd + usb drive for your nefarious stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312635</id>
	<title>Where's the crime?</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1244838540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I really don't see any crime here.</p><p>Forging an email, as long as it wasn't to sign a contract or otherwise perform a legal action, isn't illegal anymore than a prank phone call is. Repeatedly pretending to be the guy and trying to actually start a gay relationship through email would probably classify as harassment, but I highly doubt a single email would.</p><p>Downloading pirated stuff isn't illegal either unless you're selling the material. (The company that made the material can sue for infringement, but that's a civil matter, and should not involve the police at any time.)</p><p>Changing grades is incredibly stupid, and grounds for being immediately kicked out of school with all credits earned voided, but I'm pretty sure it's not a crime. (Forging a degree IS a crime, so they could maybe argue that changing grades IS effectively forging a degree, but I'm not sure if that would hold up in court.)</p><p>So, how exactly was a search warrant issued when not a single crime was committed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I really do n't see any crime here.Forging an email , as long as it was n't to sign a contract or otherwise perform a legal action , is n't illegal anymore than a prank phone call is .
Repeatedly pretending to be the guy and trying to actually start a gay relationship through email would probably classify as harassment , but I highly doubt a single email would.Downloading pirated stuff is n't illegal either unless you 're selling the material .
( The company that made the material can sue for infringement , but that 's a civil matter , and should not involve the police at any time .
) Changing grades is incredibly stupid , and grounds for being immediately kicked out of school with all credits earned voided , but I 'm pretty sure it 's not a crime .
( Forging a degree IS a crime , so they could maybe argue that changing grades IS effectively forging a degree , but I 'm not sure if that would hold up in court .
) So , how exactly was a search warrant issued when not a single crime was committed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I really don't see any crime here.Forging an email, as long as it wasn't to sign a contract or otherwise perform a legal action, isn't illegal anymore than a prank phone call is.
Repeatedly pretending to be the guy and trying to actually start a gay relationship through email would probably classify as harassment, but I highly doubt a single email would.Downloading pirated stuff isn't illegal either unless you're selling the material.
(The company that made the material can sue for infringement, but that's a civil matter, and should not involve the police at any time.
)Changing grades is incredibly stupid, and grounds for being immediately kicked out of school with all credits earned voided, but I'm pretty sure it's not a crime.
(Forging a degree IS a crime, so they could maybe argue that changing grades IS effectively forging a degree, but I'm not sure if that would hold up in court.
)So, how exactly was a search warrant issued when not a single crime was committed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310005</id>
	<title>If they can't find it</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1244828580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>they can't get it back. Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they ca n't get it back .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they can't get it back.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310041</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>dread</author>
	<datestamp>1244828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of douchebags. They should be sentenced to 25 to life in the same cell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of douchebags .
They should be sentenced to 25 to life in the same cell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of douchebags.
They should be sentenced to 25 to life in the same cell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312917</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, being drunk isn't illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , being drunk is n't illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, being drunk isn't illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310781</id>
	<title>Re:Pr0n</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive, the outcome could be pretty sticky.</p></div><p>Penalty! Bad joke, <a href="http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1410" title="questionablecontent.net">two minutes in the box.</a> [questionablecontent.net]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive , the outcome could be pretty sticky.Penalty !
Bad joke , two minutes in the box .
[ questionablecontent.net ] : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the amount of pr0n in its harddrive, the outcome could be pretty sticky.Penalty!
Bad joke, two minutes in the box.
[questionablecontent.net] :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309987</id>
	<title>Have you seen my glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rays are BLINDING me and i am vulnerable to Italian attacks! Countrymen, brothers, hasten to my aid! I beseech you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rays are BLINDING me and i am vulnerable to Italian attacks !
Countrymen , brothers , hasten to my aid !
I beseech you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rays are BLINDING me and i am vulnerable to Italian attacks!
Countrymen, brothers, hasten to my aid!
I beseech you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310603</id>
	<title>I'm confused: he was hacking!</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1244831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades?  Should that not have been the police's main concern?  Isn't that a significantly bigger crime than the others?  Shouldn't the school have been interested in this?

"Hello Police, I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket.  Oh, and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun."
"Thank you sir, we'll get right on that loitering thing."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades ?
Should that not have been the police 's main concern ?
Is n't that a significantly bigger crime than the others ?
Should n't the school have been interested in this ?
" Hello Police , I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket .
Oh , and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun .
" " Thank you sir , we 'll get right on that loitering thing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that no one is paying attention to the fact that he was breaking into the school computer system and changing grades?
Should that not have been the police's main concern?
Isn't that a significantly bigger crime than the others?
Shouldn't the school have been interested in this?
"Hello Police, I saw this guy loitering in front of the supermarket.
Oh, and he was also killing dozens of people with a machine gun.
"
"Thank you sir, we'll get right on that loitering thing.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312457</id>
	<title>That's 11 hours a day</title>
	<author>Digital\_Quartz</author>
	<datestamp>1244838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming all movies are 100 minutes long, and you sleep 8 hours a night, then 200 movies means you're spending about 70\% of your awake time, or over 11 hours a day, watching movies.</p><p>But yes, I agree with your basic point; many of the people who pirate the movie and watch it are likely to simply not watch the movie if the option of piracy is removed.  Claiming people that don't watch the movie represent some kind of loss is a little strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming all movies are 100 minutes long , and you sleep 8 hours a night , then 200 movies means you 're spending about 70 \ % of your awake time , or over 11 hours a day , watching movies.But yes , I agree with your basic point ; many of the people who pirate the movie and watch it are likely to simply not watch the movie if the option of piracy is removed .
Claiming people that do n't watch the movie represent some kind of loss is a little strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming all movies are 100 minutes long, and you sleep 8 hours a night, then 200 movies means you're spending about 70\% of your awake time, or over 11 hours a day, watching movies.But yes, I agree with your basic point; many of the people who pirate the movie and watch it are likely to simply not watch the movie if the option of piracy is removed.
Claiming people that don't watch the movie represent some kind of loss is a little strange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313743</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1244799300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the laws are written by the Corporations (through the politicians they own) for the Corporations. I suspect that much of the time so-called Western Democracies (and as a Canadian I include Canada in this) are nothing more than Corporatocracies (to coin a word since I can't think of a better one) with the *facade* of elections and political parties. From what I can see, its a rare day the Government doesn't bend over backwards to help large corporations and ignore the citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the laws are written by the Corporations ( through the politicians they own ) for the Corporations .
I suspect that much of the time so-called Western Democracies ( and as a Canadian I include Canada in this ) are nothing more than Corporatocracies ( to coin a word since I ca n't think of a better one ) with the * facade * of elections and political parties .
From what I can see , its a rare day the Government does n't bend over backwards to help large corporations and ignore the citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the laws are written by the Corporations (through the politicians they own) for the Corporations.
I suspect that much of the time so-called Western Democracies (and as a Canadian I include Canada in this) are nothing more than Corporatocracies (to coin a word since I can't think of a better one) with the *facade* of elections and political parties.
From what I can see, its a rare day the Government doesn't bend over backwards to help large corporations and ignore the citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311475</id>
	<title>Re:Pr0n</title>
	<author>Reeses</author>
	<datestamp>1244834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably already was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably already was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably already was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312279</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Message from the MegaCorporations:<br>Dear slaves, it doesnt matter what you want. you just need to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND KNOW YOUR FUCKING PLACE.</p><p>You're slaves, you mean less than dirt, you arent even human, you buy what we pump out, if you dont, you're a pirate and we will bring our goons out to ruin you. The IRS has already succeeded in doing this, so will we.</p><p>Do what we want, sit in fear because chances are, we're coming after you next just to make an example out of you. Oh yeah, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Fight it and we will ruin you and everyone you hold a relation to, to the point where your descendants will be socially shunned, and will not be able to get credit, that is, if you live long enough to have descendants, and don't have an "accident" or a "suicide" first.</p><p>Remember, you serve us, we WILL have your money. WE DON'T have to compete. Those people you voted for? We put them there, we control the media, we sway the elections. Those are our representatives in power with our interests in mind. Not yours, you're nothing more than sheep, easily disposable, easily bred, easily fleeced.</p><p>Just remember that the next time you decide to speak out against us, slave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Message from the MegaCorporations : Dear slaves , it doesnt matter what you want .
you just need to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND KNOW YOUR FUCKING PLACE.You 're slaves , you mean less than dirt , you arent even human , you buy what we pump out , if you dont , you 're a pirate and we will bring our goons out to ruin you .
The IRS has already succeeded in doing this , so will we.Do what we want , sit in fear because chances are , we 're coming after you next just to make an example out of you .
Oh yeah , there 's not a damn thing you can do about it .
Fight it and we will ruin you and everyone you hold a relation to , to the point where your descendants will be socially shunned , and will not be able to get credit , that is , if you live long enough to have descendants , and do n't have an " accident " or a " suicide " first.Remember , you serve us , we WILL have your money .
WE DO N'T have to compete .
Those people you voted for ?
We put them there , we control the media , we sway the elections .
Those are our representatives in power with our interests in mind .
Not yours , you 're nothing more than sheep , easily disposable , easily bred , easily fleeced.Just remember that the next time you decide to speak out against us , slave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Message from the MegaCorporations:Dear slaves, it doesnt matter what you want.
you just need to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND KNOW YOUR FUCKING PLACE.You're slaves, you mean less than dirt, you arent even human, you buy what we pump out, if you dont, you're a pirate and we will bring our goons out to ruin you.
The IRS has already succeeded in doing this, so will we.Do what we want, sit in fear because chances are, we're coming after you next just to make an example out of you.
Oh yeah, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Fight it and we will ruin you and everyone you hold a relation to, to the point where your descendants will be socially shunned, and will not be able to get credit, that is, if you live long enough to have descendants, and don't have an "accident" or a "suicide" first.Remember, you serve us, we WILL have your money.
WE DON'T have to compete.
Those people you voted for?
We put them there, we control the media, we sway the elections.
Those are our representatives in power with our interests in mind.
Not yours, you're nothing more than sheep, easily disposable, easily bred, easily fleeced.Just remember that the next time you decide to speak out against us, slave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311429</id>
	<title>Re:Encrypt, encrypt!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way you talk is annoying as hell. You should've been the 'Don't tase me bro' guy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way you talk is annoying as hell .
You should 've been the 'Do n't tase me bro ' guy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way you talk is annoying as hell.
You should've been the 'Don't tase me bro' guy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314531</id>
	<title>Re:Those are only for the little people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they DO have to play by those rules.  If they don't, they're guilty of, at minimum, a Federal offense by committing actions under Color of Law.</p><p>You can ONLY legally do many of the things that an LEO does, if you ARE an LEO- AND you have a Warrant.  The seizure of the equipment under the warrant, if it was proven<br>that the LEOs KNEW the warrant was falsely sworn, would constitute theft of personal property and a violation of the Color of Law statute.  It's rather difficult to prove that they<br>didn't know better, so it doesn't often get ran up the flagpole- but there are circumstances that leave them open all the same.  Odds are decent that this would likely be one of<br>them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they DO have to play by those rules .
If they do n't , they 're guilty of , at minimum , a Federal offense by committing actions under Color of Law.You can ONLY legally do many of the things that an LEO does , if you ARE an LEO- AND you have a Warrant .
The seizure of the equipment under the warrant , if it was proventhat the LEOs KNEW the warrant was falsely sworn , would constitute theft of personal property and a violation of the Color of Law statute .
It 's rather difficult to prove that theydid n't know better , so it does n't often get ran up the flagpole- but there are circumstances that leave them open all the same .
Odds are decent that this would likely be one ofthem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they DO have to play by those rules.
If they don't, they're guilty of, at minimum, a Federal offense by committing actions under Color of Law.You can ONLY legally do many of the things that an LEO does, if you ARE an LEO- AND you have a Warrant.
The seizure of the equipment under the warrant, if it was proventhat the LEOs KNEW the warrant was falsely sworn, would constitute theft of personal property and a violation of the Color of Law statute.
It's rather difficult to prove that theydidn't know better, so it doesn't often get ran up the flagpole- but there are circumstances that leave them open all the same.
Odds are decent that this would likely be one ofthem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311419</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the police did not care</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1244834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?"</p><p>They haven't finished watching the movies/porn yet?  "Awwww, Your Honor, can't we keep this computer for just another week?  I forgot how good "Debby does Dallas" was, and with my schedule, I won't be able to watch it til the weekend!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time ?
" They have n't finished watching the movies/porn yet ?
" Awwww , Your Honor , ca n't we keep this computer for just another week ?
I forgot how good " Debby does Dallas " was , and with my schedule , I wo n't be able to watch it til the weekend !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?
"They haven't finished watching the movies/porn yet?
"Awwww, Your Honor, can't we keep this computer for just another week?
I forgot how good "Debby does Dallas" was, and with my schedule, I won't be able to watch it til the weekend!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310023</id>
	<title>Shut the fuck up Bennett</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you were a douchebag in 96 and you're a douchebag today.  Fuck you and peacefire you elitist prick</htmltext>
<tokenext>you were a douchebag in 96 and you 're a douchebag today .
Fuck you and peacefire you elitist prick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you were a douchebag in 96 and you're a douchebag today.
Fuck you and peacefire you elitist prick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311965</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The legal system is too biassed</p></div><p>huh huh, two asses</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The legal system is too biassedhuh huh , two asses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legal system is too biassedhuh huh, two asses
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310927</id>
	<title>How to make a laptop sick?</title>
	<author>PerlDave</author>
	<datestamp>1244832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Install Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Install Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28316863</id>
	<title>downloading movies isn't illegal</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244821020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could have tried to stick him with that, but there are really no charges which would have stuck.</p><p>Downloading is simply not illegal.  It cannot be.  You're not infringing upon anyone's copyright.</p><p>The person who put whatever content online in the first place is doing something "illegal"</p><p>copyright infringement isn't meant to be illegal persay, it's meant to discourage counterfeiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could have tried to stick him with that , but there are really no charges which would have stuck.Downloading is simply not illegal .
It can not be .
You 're not infringing upon anyone 's copyright.The person who put whatever content online in the first place is doing something " illegal " copyright infringement is n't meant to be illegal persay , it 's meant to discourage counterfeiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could have tried to stick him with that, but there are really no charges which would have stuck.Downloading is simply not illegal.
It cannot be.
You're not infringing upon anyone's copyright.The person who put whatever content online in the first place is doing something "illegal"copyright infringement isn't meant to be illegal persay, it's meant to discourage counterfeiting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28393325</id>
	<title>Did he really do it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245440460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The affidavit says that the computer name is something he might have used, but nowhere says that he actually had anything to do with the computer. They give two different MAC addresses. One for the laptop that sent the e-mail and one for his computer. Last I checked, he only owned one computer. Anyone else thinks this sounds fishy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The affidavit says that the computer name is something he might have used , but nowhere says that he actually had anything to do with the computer .
They give two different MAC addresses .
One for the laptop that sent the e-mail and one for his computer .
Last I checked , he only owned one computer .
Anyone else thinks this sounds fishy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affidavit says that the computer name is something he might have used, but nowhere says that he actually had anything to do with the computer.
They give two different MAC addresses.
One for the laptop that sent the e-mail and one for his computer.
Last I checked, he only owned one computer.
Anyone else thinks this sounds fishy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313039</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>woopate</author>
	<datestamp>1244839920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As parent said, you can't define what is lost to pirates, because some pirates wouldn't have purchased it in any case, and some pay for it AND pirate it, simply so that they have a copy of it more quickly and more conveniently than commuting to a store, purchasing, then commuting home. Not everybody has time, and, in essence, time shift their purchases with piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As parent said , you ca n't define what is lost to pirates , because some pirates would n't have purchased it in any case , and some pay for it AND pirate it , simply so that they have a copy of it more quickly and more conveniently than commuting to a store , purchasing , then commuting home .
Not everybody has time , and , in essence , time shift their purchases with piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As parent said, you can't define what is lost to pirates, because some pirates wouldn't have purchased it in any case, and some pay for it AND pirate it, simply so that they have a copy of it more quickly and more conveniently than commuting to a store, purchasing, then commuting home.
Not everybody has time, and, in essence, time shift their purchases with piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313961</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>zufar</author>
	<datestamp>1244800260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..."I'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research."<p>

I think you could have done some research after this post:
<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1243685&amp;cid=28074421" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1243685&amp;cid=28074421</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... " I 'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research .
" I think you could have done some research after this post : http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1243685&amp;cid = 28074421 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..."I'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research.
"

I think you could have done some research after this post:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1243685&amp;cid=28074421 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309881</id>
	<title>Mountain Dew...</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1244828220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...should do the trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...should do the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...should do the trick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310263</id>
	<title>Maybe the police did not care</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1244829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks to me as a private war between roommates, which went out of control and then to the police.  Interesting that the police cared enough to seize one computer, but probably just to calm down this war a bit.  Why should they actually care too much about the other stuff?  And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me as a private war between roommates , which went out of control and then to the police .
Interesting that the police cared enough to seize one computer , but probably just to calm down this war a bit .
Why should they actually care too much about the other stuff ?
And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks to me as a private war between roommates, which went out of control and then to the police.
Interesting that the police cared enough to seize one computer, but probably just to calm down this war a bit.
Why should they actually care too much about the other stuff?
And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313827</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>DelShalDar</author>
	<datestamp>1244799660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with you, to an extent, that software is a different story, it's more just the characters getting shiny new names and the plot adds a twist or two.</p><p>Ultimately, software is just like a novel/song/movie/picture in that it's a creative work, and the only real thing that can be expected for the creator's compensation is the equipment cost to build the software and the work hours spent to put the whole thing together.  As long as those costs get paid for by those wanting to use the app, there's really no difference between it and any other form of creative work, with the only major twist being the non-entertainment aspects of the software market.  Even then, unless you find a group of developers that get paid based primarily on the sales of the software they created (or helped create), you're not actually paying the creators for their creativity beyond the time spent on their part in the whole thing.  Just look at the software industry and at how many developers and other creative types are little more than salaried workers that don't get paid more when their creative efforts significantly increase sales or profits.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I support any creative person's <i>desire</i> to earn a living off of their creativity and ideas alone, but it's only recently in the grand history of the world that anyone has actually come to <i>expect</i> to make money off of nothing more than an idea or concept.  Before that it was all in the ideas that could be embedded into or onto physical objects.</p><p>For <i>any</i> non-physical item that strongly relies on some creative component, be it artwork, music, literature, or software, the same concepts should be brought into play, and they should all be treated equally.  They are all works that are created, and all are primarily groupings of non-physical elements that differ from each item to the next solely by those non-physical attributes.  And no, I won't count groupings of colored dots displayed on a general-purpose display to constitute a physical element -- I count the screen itself as such, but not the image displayed when using it.</p><p>The big question that should be asked is whether or not the actual creators are paid when money is spent on the finished product, and how much of it goes to people who had little to nothing to do with the creation itself.  The more that goes to those non-creative types, the more they tend to demand, and the less they're willing to give up to the creators.  This is why a lot of people want to feel insulted when a movie or song or whatnot has its copyright infringed.  It's not because they care about the creators, but that they want their cut of someone else's work, and they're willing to fight for that scrap of something substantial that they don't need to work for.  That, or they're pissed off because they spent money on something other people have figured out how to get without needing to pay for it and didn't share... it's probably more of the latter than the former, or they're a shill.</p><p>Ultimately, do I <i>want</i> to make money solely based on my creative thoughts? Yes.  Do I also <i>want</i> to be able to make money simply by breathing?  Sure!  There's no reason not to so long as someone is willing to pay money for it.  Now, do I <i>expect</i> to make money solely based on my creative thoughts?  No.  That would be stupid.  Do I have the <i>right</i> to make money off of nothing more than my creative thinking? No.  Do I have the right to <i>try</i> making money off of nothing more than my creative thinking?  Sure, just as I have the right to <i>try</i> to turn used kitty litter into gold using nothing more than an old sock and a dirty toothbrush.  I can't expect to be able to actually <i>do</i> it, and it's likely to smell bad, and people will likely be less willing to stand near me due to the lingering odor, but I can still try for the kitty litter to gold conversion.  Similarly, creative people can still try for the post-creativity income on their work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you , to an extent , that software is a different story , it 's more just the characters getting shiny new names and the plot adds a twist or two.Ultimately , software is just like a novel/song/movie/picture in that it 's a creative work , and the only real thing that can be expected for the creator 's compensation is the equipment cost to build the software and the work hours spent to put the whole thing together .
As long as those costs get paid for by those wanting to use the app , there 's really no difference between it and any other form of creative work , with the only major twist being the non-entertainment aspects of the software market .
Even then , unless you find a group of developers that get paid based primarily on the sales of the software they created ( or helped create ) , you 're not actually paying the creators for their creativity beyond the time spent on their part in the whole thing .
Just look at the software industry and at how many developers and other creative types are little more than salaried workers that do n't get paid more when their creative efforts significantly increase sales or profits.Do n't get me wrong , I support any creative person 's desire to earn a living off of their creativity and ideas alone , but it 's only recently in the grand history of the world that anyone has actually come to expect to make money off of nothing more than an idea or concept .
Before that it was all in the ideas that could be embedded into or onto physical objects.For any non-physical item that strongly relies on some creative component , be it artwork , music , literature , or software , the same concepts should be brought into play , and they should all be treated equally .
They are all works that are created , and all are primarily groupings of non-physical elements that differ from each item to the next solely by those non-physical attributes .
And no , I wo n't count groupings of colored dots displayed on a general-purpose display to constitute a physical element -- I count the screen itself as such , but not the image displayed when using it.The big question that should be asked is whether or not the actual creators are paid when money is spent on the finished product , and how much of it goes to people who had little to nothing to do with the creation itself .
The more that goes to those non-creative types , the more they tend to demand , and the less they 're willing to give up to the creators .
This is why a lot of people want to feel insulted when a movie or song or whatnot has its copyright infringed .
It 's not because they care about the creators , but that they want their cut of someone else 's work , and they 're willing to fight for that scrap of something substantial that they do n't need to work for .
That , or they 're pissed off because they spent money on something other people have figured out how to get without needing to pay for it and did n't share... it 's probably more of the latter than the former , or they 're a shill.Ultimately , do I want to make money solely based on my creative thoughts ?
Yes. Do I also want to be able to make money simply by breathing ?
Sure ! There 's no reason not to so long as someone is willing to pay money for it .
Now , do I expect to make money solely based on my creative thoughts ?
No. That would be stupid .
Do I have the right to make money off of nothing more than my creative thinking ?
No. Do I have the right to try making money off of nothing more than my creative thinking ?
Sure , just as I have the right to try to turn used kitty litter into gold using nothing more than an old sock and a dirty toothbrush .
I ca n't expect to be able to actually do it , and it 's likely to smell bad , and people will likely be less willing to stand near me due to the lingering odor , but I can still try for the kitty litter to gold conversion .
Similarly , creative people can still try for the post-creativity income on their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you, to an extent, that software is a different story, it's more just the characters getting shiny new names and the plot adds a twist or two.Ultimately, software is just like a novel/song/movie/picture in that it's a creative work, and the only real thing that can be expected for the creator's compensation is the equipment cost to build the software and the work hours spent to put the whole thing together.
As long as those costs get paid for by those wanting to use the app, there's really no difference between it and any other form of creative work, with the only major twist being the non-entertainment aspects of the software market.
Even then, unless you find a group of developers that get paid based primarily on the sales of the software they created (or helped create), you're not actually paying the creators for their creativity beyond the time spent on their part in the whole thing.
Just look at the software industry and at how many developers and other creative types are little more than salaried workers that don't get paid more when their creative efforts significantly increase sales or profits.Don't get me wrong, I support any creative person's desire to earn a living off of their creativity and ideas alone, but it's only recently in the grand history of the world that anyone has actually come to expect to make money off of nothing more than an idea or concept.
Before that it was all in the ideas that could be embedded into or onto physical objects.For any non-physical item that strongly relies on some creative component, be it artwork, music, literature, or software, the same concepts should be brought into play, and they should all be treated equally.
They are all works that are created, and all are primarily groupings of non-physical elements that differ from each item to the next solely by those non-physical attributes.
And no, I won't count groupings of colored dots displayed on a general-purpose display to constitute a physical element -- I count the screen itself as such, but not the image displayed when using it.The big question that should be asked is whether or not the actual creators are paid when money is spent on the finished product, and how much of it goes to people who had little to nothing to do with the creation itself.
The more that goes to those non-creative types, the more they tend to demand, and the less they're willing to give up to the creators.
This is why a lot of people want to feel insulted when a movie or song or whatnot has its copyright infringed.
It's not because they care about the creators, but that they want their cut of someone else's work, and they're willing to fight for that scrap of something substantial that they don't need to work for.
That, or they're pissed off because they spent money on something other people have figured out how to get without needing to pay for it and didn't share... it's probably more of the latter than the former, or they're a shill.Ultimately, do I want to make money solely based on my creative thoughts?
Yes.  Do I also want to be able to make money simply by breathing?
Sure!  There's no reason not to so long as someone is willing to pay money for it.
Now, do I expect to make money solely based on my creative thoughts?
No.  That would be stupid.
Do I have the right to make money off of nothing more than my creative thinking?
No.  Do I have the right to try making money off of nothing more than my creative thinking?
Sure, just as I have the right to try to turn used kitty litter into gold using nothing more than an old sock and a dirty toothbrush.
I can't expect to be able to actually do it, and it's likely to smell bad, and people will likely be less willing to stand near me due to the lingering odor, but I can still try for the kitty litter to gold conversion.
Similarly, creative people can still try for the post-creativity income on their work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175</id>
	<title>Police Use Resources at Their Discretion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words: Even if the police didn't really care about the pirated movies and the grade-hacking, it might have helped to make the warrant stick if they had made more of a passing reference to those issues in the motion for a warrant, at least according to the reasoning expressed by the judge.</p></div><p>I don't get it.  Police use their resources at their discretion.  I had a friend getting a massive speeding ticket once and in the middle of filling out the ticket, the cop's radio went apeshit.  Someone had been shot nearby in DC so the cop just said, "This is your lucky day" and left.  Why?  Because he had better shit to do!  Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle.  I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what do you think their answer was?  I was at a party in college where a bunch of people were smoking five bowls of weed when cops knocked on the door.  They were there to tell us to turn the music down.  They smelled/saw weed.  They told everyone to shut up or go home and that's what we did.  Why didn't they book everyone in the room for possession?  Probably because they had more important shit to do that night.  <br> <br>

Point being, if you're complaining about your neighbor or roommate engaging in an illegal activity, stick to investigating what the source of the complaint is.  His roommate wasn't upset about illegal file sharing, that was just to spite the guy.  The cops requested a warrant <b>correctly</b> addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone.  Maybe changing grades bothered his roommate, I don't know.  <br> <br>

Let me ask you this, if your neighbor had a problem with your pool parties getting too loud and he called the police and said "Oh yeah, and he also speeds when he drives in our neighborhood and I saw him with fireworks when they're illegal in our state and sometimes he has a bonfire without the notified officials being there and and and and and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."  What would you do in a situation like that if you were the responding officer?  Calm the guy down, verify if there is an issue, resolve the issue and tell the guy he needs proof if he wants to make it stick.  <br> <br>

Now what if police implemented a template warrant for computers that had "illegal games, illegal music, illegal movies, etc" on it so that just in case they wanted icing on the cake for whatever they were going after you for, it was there?  You know, just list common things.  You need to know exactly what you're getting a warrant for otherwise it's an abuse just like the government wiretappings now.  <br> <br>

Your editorial seems to consist more so of "if you really want to screw someone in a case like this, make sure you verify all this extra illegal stuff he's doing."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or have I missed something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words : Even if the police did n't really care about the pirated movies and the grade-hacking , it might have helped to make the warrant stick if they had made more of a passing reference to those issues in the motion for a warrant , at least according to the reasoning expressed by the judge.I do n't get it .
Police use their resources at their discretion .
I had a friend getting a massive speeding ticket once and in the middle of filling out the ticket , the cop 's radio went apeshit .
Someone had been shot nearby in DC so the cop just said , " This is your lucky day " and left .
Why ? Because he had better shit to do !
Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle .
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was ?
I was at a party in college where a bunch of people were smoking five bowls of weed when cops knocked on the door .
They were there to tell us to turn the music down .
They smelled/saw weed .
They told everyone to shut up or go home and that 's what we did .
Why did n't they book everyone in the room for possession ?
Probably because they had more important shit to do that night .
Point being , if you 're complaining about your neighbor or roommate engaging in an illegal activity , stick to investigating what the source of the complaint is .
His roommate was n't upset about illegal file sharing , that was just to spite the guy .
The cops requested a warrant correctly addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone .
Maybe changing grades bothered his roommate , I do n't know .
Let me ask you this , if your neighbor had a problem with your pool parties getting too loud and he called the police and said " Oh yeah , and he also speeds when he drives in our neighborhood and I saw him with fireworks when they 're illegal in our state and sometimes he has a bonfire without the notified officials being there and and and and and ... " What would you do in a situation like that if you were the responding officer ?
Calm the guy down , verify if there is an issue , resolve the issue and tell the guy he needs proof if he wants to make it stick .
Now what if police implemented a template warrant for computers that had " illegal games , illegal music , illegal movies , etc " on it so that just in case they wanted icing on the cake for whatever they were going after you for , it was there ?
You know , just list common things .
You need to know exactly what you 're getting a warrant for otherwise it 's an abuse just like the government wiretappings now .
Your editorial seems to consist more so of " if you really want to screw someone in a case like this , make sure you verify all this extra illegal stuff he 's doing .
" ... or have I missed something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words: Even if the police didn't really care about the pirated movies and the grade-hacking, it might have helped to make the warrant stick if they had made more of a passing reference to those issues in the motion for a warrant, at least according to the reasoning expressed by the judge.I don't get it.
Police use their resources at their discretion.
I had a friend getting a massive speeding ticket once and in the middle of filling out the ticket, the cop's radio went apeshit.
Someone had been shot nearby in DC so the cop just said, "This is your lucky day" and left.
Why?  Because he had better shit to do!
Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle.
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was?
I was at a party in college where a bunch of people were smoking five bowls of weed when cops knocked on the door.
They were there to tell us to turn the music down.
They smelled/saw weed.
They told everyone to shut up or go home and that's what we did.
Why didn't they book everyone in the room for possession?
Probably because they had more important shit to do that night.
Point being, if you're complaining about your neighbor or roommate engaging in an illegal activity, stick to investigating what the source of the complaint is.
His roommate wasn't upset about illegal file sharing, that was just to spite the guy.
The cops requested a warrant correctly addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone.
Maybe changing grades bothered his roommate, I don't know.
Let me ask you this, if your neighbor had a problem with your pool parties getting too loud and he called the police and said "Oh yeah, and he also speeds when he drives in our neighborhood and I saw him with fireworks when they're illegal in our state and sometimes he has a bonfire without the notified officials being there and and and and and ..."  What would you do in a situation like that if you were the responding officer?
Calm the guy down, verify if there is an issue, resolve the issue and tell the guy he needs proof if he wants to make it stick.
Now what if police implemented a template warrant for computers that had "illegal games, illegal music, illegal movies, etc" on it so that just in case they wanted icing on the cake for whatever they were going after you for, it was there?
You know, just list common things.
You need to know exactly what you're getting a warrant for otherwise it's an abuse just like the government wiretappings now.
Your editorial seems to consist more so of "if you really want to screw someone in a case like this, make sure you verify all this extra illegal stuff he's doing.
" ... or have I missed something?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314309</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen? Stealing is stealing.</p></div><p>Yes. People torrent expensively-made movies. People don't torrent their neighbor's grocery lists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen ?
Stealing is stealing.Yes .
People torrent expensively-made movies .
People do n't torrent their neighbor 's grocery lists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen?
Stealing is stealing.Yes.
People torrent expensively-made movies.
People don't torrent their neighbor's grocery lists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311477</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt you could find a lawyer that would take up such a case on contingency, so get out your wallet (and cross your fingers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt you could find a lawyer that would take up such a case on contingency , so get out your wallet ( and cross your fingers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt you could find a lawyer that would take up such a case on contingency, so get out your wallet (and cross your fingers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310255</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1244829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who's your daddy?</p><p>its that simple.</p><p>the money trail is *perceived* as coming from the corps.  the power base is now and always has been the rich.</p><p>you don't punish the rich when they do wrong; not usually.  they can defend themselves.</p><p>attack and punish the individual since they can't.</p><p>simple.  animal mentality used in human society. still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who 's your daddy ? its that simple.the money trail is * perceived * as coming from the corps .
the power base is now and always has been the rich.you do n't punish the rich when they do wrong ; not usually .
they can defend themselves.attack and punish the individual since they ca n't.simple .
animal mentality used in human society .
still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who's your daddy?its that simple.the money trail is *perceived* as coming from the corps.
the power base is now and always has been the rich.you don't punish the rich when they do wrong; not usually.
they can defend themselves.attack and punish the individual since they can't.simple.
animal mentality used in human society.
still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313071</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Nigel Stepp</author>
	<datestamp>1244840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding, this is a terrible (possibly disingenuous) analysis of the ruling. Guaranteed to get people on slashdot talking though.</p><p>Please, everyone read the <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/SJCcalixteorder.pdf" title="eff.org">whole thing</a> [eff.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding , this is a terrible ( possibly disingenuous ) analysis of the ruling .
Guaranteed to get people on slashdot talking though.Please , everyone read the whole thing [ eff.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding, this is a terrible (possibly disingenuous) analysis of the ruling.
Guaranteed to get people on slashdot talking though.Please, everyone read the whole thing [eff.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310303</id>
	<title>Speaking of evidence...</title>
	<author>Serenissima</author>
	<datestamp>1244829840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what evidence they could have found about hacking into the school's computers to change grades. Would he be stupid enough to keep a log of all IP numbers he connected to so there would be a nice trail to follow right to the school's sever? If someone hacked a server, wouldn't you need to look at that server to find evidence that there was a connection with a particular person/IP number?<br>
<br>
It seems ridiculous to the point of absurdity that they even put that in the warrant in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what evidence they could have found about hacking into the school 's computers to change grades .
Would he be stupid enough to keep a log of all IP numbers he connected to so there would be a nice trail to follow right to the school 's sever ?
If someone hacked a server , would n't you need to look at that server to find evidence that there was a connection with a particular person/IP number ?
It seems ridiculous to the point of absurdity that they even put that in the warrant in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what evidence they could have found about hacking into the school's computers to change grades.
Would he be stupid enough to keep a log of all IP numbers he connected to so there would be a nice trail to follow right to the school's sever?
If someone hacked a server, wouldn't you need to look at that server to find evidence that there was a connection with a particular person/IP number?
It seems ridiculous to the point of absurdity that they even put that in the warrant in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311647</id>
	<title>Re:Can illegally obtained evidence be used ?</title>
	<author>cyber-dragon.net</author>
	<datestamp>1244835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to vary from country to country and their standards for evidence.</p><p>Fairly sure in the US if it was found illegally it falls under "Fruit of the poisonous tree" laws and can't be used, civil or criminal. There are some grey areas for licensed PIs where they seem to be able to do things cops can't but I am not sure on the details of that one. It would be the equivalent of breaking into someone's house and finding a stolen painting vs police knocking on the door and seeing it hanging there from the doorway. One is legal, one is not.</p><p>Now you could break in, see it, report it and have the police come look in exchange for immunity on the break-in charge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Though why you would want to do that is beyond me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to vary from country to country and their standards for evidence.Fairly sure in the US if it was found illegally it falls under " Fruit of the poisonous tree " laws and ca n't be used , civil or criminal .
There are some grey areas for licensed PIs where they seem to be able to do things cops ca n't but I am not sure on the details of that one .
It would be the equivalent of breaking into someone 's house and finding a stolen painting vs police knocking on the door and seeing it hanging there from the doorway .
One is legal , one is not.Now you could break in , see it , report it and have the police come look in exchange for immunity on the break-in charge : ) Though why you would want to do that is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to vary from country to country and their standards for evidence.Fairly sure in the US if it was found illegally it falls under "Fruit of the poisonous tree" laws and can't be used, civil or criminal.
There are some grey areas for licensed PIs where they seem to be able to do things cops can't but I am not sure on the details of that one.
It would be the equivalent of breaking into someone's house and finding a stolen painting vs police knocking on the door and seeing it hanging there from the doorway.
One is legal, one is not.Now you could break in, see it, report it and have the police come look in exchange for immunity on the break-in charge :) Though why you would want to do that is beyond me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314173</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking of the lazinaess of cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were really investigating the grade changing, all they had to do was contact the profs to compare their own records/recollections of the grades to what was in the system.</p><p>This was obviously a fishing expediton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were really investigating the grade changing , all they had to do was contact the profs to compare their own records/recollections of the grades to what was in the system.This was obviously a fishing expediton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were really investigating the grade changing, all they had to do was contact the profs to compare their own records/recollections of the grades to what was in the system.This was obviously a fishing expediton.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310997</id>
	<title>Re:Police Use Resources at Their Discretion YES!</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1244832540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sure do.</p><p>"Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle. I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what do you think their answer was? "</p><p>Once, my car's transmission went out. Acura had to order a replacement, but it would have been more expensive to install a new one from the factory, so they offered a rebuilt transmission, one from Japan. It would take a while, so my car was down, in the lot maybe 2 weeks or almost a month (can't recall exactly, as this was ~summer 1992). Multiple ensuing issues kept my car in the dealer's hands and i was getting antsy. I thought they were punishing me for hounding them, and my car ended up there longer.</p><p>Then, after they got all the parts replaced, they gave me a good news/bad news call. The parts were installed, the car runs great, but it's not ready. Why? Someone stole one of the wheels (i had 4 aluminum allow wheels; can't recall the tires being new, though), stole the radio, and damaged something else i can't remember.</p><p>My company president was an attorney, and told me it was bullshit, that they were responsible. Told me to press on. Acura told me that that i had signed a waiver making holding them harmless and not at fault. Then, i was livid. Shortly, the police called and told me the had a case involving my car, that it was stripped of some parts, but there were not broken windows or locks. Sounded like an inside job. I began to wonder where this was going. Was *i* being implicated? How? I don't have access to their lot, and as far as i know, they had lot security in form of doors, locks, cameras, a human, and i believe a sentry dog.</p><p>I think I asked the calling officer to dust for prints. He said they did, and that the case was suspicious. Being ex-Navy, my prints would be available to DOD and certain authorities, but i don't know if Mountain View PD would have access to them. Anyway, i was personally in the clear. The conversation ended on whether or not i was going to file a report, and that i might need one for insurance and so on. Oh, and that this particular dealership had had MULTIPLE break-ins and car parts thefts. No mention of inventory being stolen. So, it sounded like one or more persons were after specific, hard-to-order/obtain parts. So, why not take the whole car and strip it? 1989 Integra models would have sold more for parts than as a whole assembly.</p><p>I called the dealer. They tried to fall back on the disclaimer/release form. I had already had a refreshed conversation with my lawyer/boss, and i phrased my stern verbal warning to the dealership manager. Replace my parts, at no cost to me, or else i'd disclose their issues.</p><p>Another good news/bad news call. They had gotten the wheel from a central valley dealership, but it was the wrong side. They would not be able to use it because installing it in the wrong direction would cause "blue rotor", which i'd never heard of. Getting the right wheel would take another week or so. When the ordeal was over, i think i never used nor bought parts from that dealership again. Later, they relocated to a different, more accessible location (from a cul-de-sac, IIRC, to the main drag) during Mountain View's auto row remodeling spree.</p><p>Fortunately, the police seemed to already have an ongoing fraud investigation that saved MY ass shitloads of money. It seems i was at the nexus of being a pain in the ass to the dealer, my car had parts SOMEbody wanted, and there was a fraud activity going on. Fate/karma/good luck/something saved my ass. People here say the worst PD's to be on the wrong side of in the bay area are Campbell, Mountain View, Milpitas, and Daly City. Mountain View PD came to my rescue because somebody was up to no good. My car was probably the one that finally tipped the scales on likely ongoing fraud. Thankfully, fingerprints on the car didn't implicate me, and the police figured i didn't reasonably have access to commit such acts on my own car and was not involved but was yet another victim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sure do .
" Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle .
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was ?
" Once , my car 's transmission went out .
Acura had to order a replacement , but it would have been more expensive to install a new one from the factory , so they offered a rebuilt transmission , one from Japan .
It would take a while , so my car was down , in the lot maybe 2 weeks or almost a month ( ca n't recall exactly , as this was ~ summer 1992 ) .
Multiple ensuing issues kept my car in the dealer 's hands and i was getting antsy .
I thought they were punishing me for hounding them , and my car ended up there longer.Then , after they got all the parts replaced , they gave me a good news/bad news call .
The parts were installed , the car runs great , but it 's not ready .
Why ? Someone stole one of the wheels ( i had 4 aluminum allow wheels ; ca n't recall the tires being new , though ) , stole the radio , and damaged something else i ca n't remember.My company president was an attorney , and told me it was bullshit , that they were responsible .
Told me to press on .
Acura told me that that i had signed a waiver making holding them harmless and not at fault .
Then , i was livid .
Shortly , the police called and told me the had a case involving my car , that it was stripped of some parts , but there were not broken windows or locks .
Sounded like an inside job .
I began to wonder where this was going .
Was * i * being implicated ?
How ? I do n't have access to their lot , and as far as i know , they had lot security in form of doors , locks , cameras , a human , and i believe a sentry dog.I think I asked the calling officer to dust for prints .
He said they did , and that the case was suspicious .
Being ex-Navy , my prints would be available to DOD and certain authorities , but i do n't know if Mountain View PD would have access to them .
Anyway , i was personally in the clear .
The conversation ended on whether or not i was going to file a report , and that i might need one for insurance and so on .
Oh , and that this particular dealership had had MULTIPLE break-ins and car parts thefts .
No mention of inventory being stolen .
So , it sounded like one or more persons were after specific , hard-to-order/obtain parts .
So , why not take the whole car and strip it ?
1989 Integra models would have sold more for parts than as a whole assembly.I called the dealer .
They tried to fall back on the disclaimer/release form .
I had already had a refreshed conversation with my lawyer/boss , and i phrased my stern verbal warning to the dealership manager .
Replace my parts , at no cost to me , or else i 'd disclose their issues.Another good news/bad news call .
They had gotten the wheel from a central valley dealership , but it was the wrong side .
They would not be able to use it because installing it in the wrong direction would cause " blue rotor " , which i 'd never heard of .
Getting the right wheel would take another week or so .
When the ordeal was over , i think i never used nor bought parts from that dealership again .
Later , they relocated to a different , more accessible location ( from a cul-de-sac , IIRC , to the main drag ) during Mountain View 's auto row remodeling spree.Fortunately , the police seemed to already have an ongoing fraud investigation that saved MY ass shitloads of money .
It seems i was at the nexus of being a pain in the ass to the dealer , my car had parts SOMEbody wanted , and there was a fraud activity going on .
Fate/karma/good luck/something saved my ass .
People here say the worst PD 's to be on the wrong side of in the bay area are Campbell , Mountain View , Milpitas , and Daly City .
Mountain View PD came to my rescue because somebody was up to no good .
My car was probably the one that finally tipped the scales on likely ongoing fraud .
Thankfully , fingerprints on the car did n't implicate me , and the police figured i did n't reasonably have access to commit such acts on my own car and was not involved but was yet another victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sure do.
"Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle.
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was?
"Once, my car's transmission went out.
Acura had to order a replacement, but it would have been more expensive to install a new one from the factory, so they offered a rebuilt transmission, one from Japan.
It would take a while, so my car was down, in the lot maybe 2 weeks or almost a month (can't recall exactly, as this was ~summer 1992).
Multiple ensuing issues kept my car in the dealer's hands and i was getting antsy.
I thought they were punishing me for hounding them, and my car ended up there longer.Then, after they got all the parts replaced, they gave me a good news/bad news call.
The parts were installed, the car runs great, but it's not ready.
Why? Someone stole one of the wheels (i had 4 aluminum allow wheels; can't recall the tires being new, though), stole the radio, and damaged something else i can't remember.My company president was an attorney, and told me it was bullshit, that they were responsible.
Told me to press on.
Acura told me that that i had signed a waiver making holding them harmless and not at fault.
Then, i was livid.
Shortly, the police called and told me the had a case involving my car, that it was stripped of some parts, but there were not broken windows or locks.
Sounded like an inside job.
I began to wonder where this was going.
Was *i* being implicated?
How? I don't have access to their lot, and as far as i know, they had lot security in form of doors, locks, cameras, a human, and i believe a sentry dog.I think I asked the calling officer to dust for prints.
He said they did, and that the case was suspicious.
Being ex-Navy, my prints would be available to DOD and certain authorities, but i don't know if Mountain View PD would have access to them.
Anyway, i was personally in the clear.
The conversation ended on whether or not i was going to file a report, and that i might need one for insurance and so on.
Oh, and that this particular dealership had had MULTIPLE break-ins and car parts thefts.
No mention of inventory being stolen.
So, it sounded like one or more persons were after specific, hard-to-order/obtain parts.
So, why not take the whole car and strip it?
1989 Integra models would have sold more for parts than as a whole assembly.I called the dealer.
They tried to fall back on the disclaimer/release form.
I had already had a refreshed conversation with my lawyer/boss, and i phrased my stern verbal warning to the dealership manager.
Replace my parts, at no cost to me, or else i'd disclose their issues.Another good news/bad news call.
They had gotten the wheel from a central valley dealership, but it was the wrong side.
They would not be able to use it because installing it in the wrong direction would cause "blue rotor", which i'd never heard of.
Getting the right wheel would take another week or so.
When the ordeal was over, i think i never used nor bought parts from that dealership again.
Later, they relocated to a different, more accessible location (from a cul-de-sac, IIRC, to the main drag) during Mountain View's auto row remodeling spree.Fortunately, the police seemed to already have an ongoing fraud investigation that saved MY ass shitloads of money.
It seems i was at the nexus of being a pain in the ass to the dealer, my car had parts SOMEbody wanted, and there was a fraud activity going on.
Fate/karma/good luck/something saved my ass.
People here say the worst PD's to be on the wrong side of in the bay area are Campbell, Mountain View, Milpitas, and Daly City.
Mountain View PD came to my rescue because somebody was up to no good.
My car was probably the one that finally tipped the scales on likely ongoing fraud.
Thankfully, fingerprints on the car didn't implicate me, and the police figured i didn't reasonably have access to commit such acts on my own car and was not involved but was yet another victim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313155</id>
	<title>Re:Those are only for the little people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as worrisome as the creeping spread of "immunity" is the militarization of the police force.</p><p>With the proliferation and glorification (within the law enforcement community) of SWAT teams, the switch to military-style weapons and tactics (MP-5s and door-bursting charges), and the us-vs.-them mindset of the modern police officer, is it any wonder that things like Ruby Ridge happen? (Note: I'm not a right-wing nutter--anyone who's read the details of the Ruby Ridge incident has to wonder why the FBI sniper shot an unarmed woman holding a baby. Randy Weaver should certainly have been fair game).</p><p>Far in the past are the days where an officer might try and talk someone into being reasonable--now it's go for the taser, and if that fails, pull a Glock, and escalate right through assault vehicles and machine guns as fast as you possibly can. Long gone are the days when police officers considered themselves members of the community and carried pistols. Gone too is any trust between law abiding citizenry and those tasked with enforcing the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as worrisome as the creeping spread of " immunity " is the militarization of the police force.With the proliferation and glorification ( within the law enforcement community ) of SWAT teams , the switch to military-style weapons and tactics ( MP-5s and door-bursting charges ) , and the us-vs.-them mindset of the modern police officer , is it any wonder that things like Ruby Ridge happen ?
( Note : I 'm not a right-wing nutter--anyone who 's read the details of the Ruby Ridge incident has to wonder why the FBI sniper shot an unarmed woman holding a baby .
Randy Weaver should certainly have been fair game ) .Far in the past are the days where an officer might try and talk someone into being reasonable--now it 's go for the taser , and if that fails , pull a Glock , and escalate right through assault vehicles and machine guns as fast as you possibly can .
Long gone are the days when police officers considered themselves members of the community and carried pistols .
Gone too is any trust between law abiding citizenry and those tasked with enforcing the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as worrisome as the creeping spread of "immunity" is the militarization of the police force.With the proliferation and glorification (within the law enforcement community) of SWAT teams, the switch to military-style weapons and tactics (MP-5s and door-bursting charges), and the us-vs.-them mindset of the modern police officer, is it any wonder that things like Ruby Ridge happen?
(Note: I'm not a right-wing nutter--anyone who's read the details of the Ruby Ridge incident has to wonder why the FBI sniper shot an unarmed woman holding a baby.
Randy Weaver should certainly have been fair game).Far in the past are the days where an officer might try and talk someone into being reasonable--now it's go for the taser, and if that fails, pull a Glock, and escalate right through assault vehicles and machine guns as fast as you possibly can.
Long gone are the days when police officers considered themselves members of the community and carried pistols.
Gone too is any trust between law abiding citizenry and those tasked with enforcing the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311103</id>
	<title>Re:Police Use Resources at Their Discretion</title>
	<author>SoupGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1244832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle. I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what do you think their answer was?</p></div><p>That they've got four more detectives working on the case and they're working in shifts?  Did the thieves at least leave your Credence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle .
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was ? That they 've got four more detectives working on the case and they 're working in shifts ?
Did the thieves at least leave your Credence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three times in one month my car was broken into and nothing was stolen but considerable damage was done to my vehicle.
I asked cops if there was an option to dust for fingerprints ... what do you think their answer was?That they've got four more detectives working on the case and they're working in shifts?
Did the thieves at least leave your Credence?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311935</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>bi<b>assed</b></p> </div><p>It's true.  The legal system has two asses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>biassed It 's true .
The legal system has two asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>biassed It's true.
The legal system has two asses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310889</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1244832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about Bennett stops trying to lecture me on the law, and I promise not to lecture him on programming?  Why has he become slashdot's legal analyst?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Bennett stops trying to lecture me on the law , and I promise not to lecture him on programming ?
Why has he become slashdot 's legal analyst ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Bennett stops trying to lecture me on the law, and I promise not to lecture him on programming?
Why has he become slashdot's legal analyst?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311889</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen? Stealing is stealing.</p></div><p>But remember copy right infringement != theft.  IMHO both are wrong, but one is more harmful than another.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen ?
Stealing is stealing.But remember copy right infringement ! = theft .
IMHO both are wrong , but one is more harmful than another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen?
Stealing is stealing.But remember copy right infringement != theft.
IMHO both are wrong, but one is more harmful than another.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313217</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1244797440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot: 'violation of constitutional rights under color of law'</p><p>Since there was no crime involved in the warrant, you can hit the judge with this as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot : 'violation of constitutional rights under color of law'Since there was no crime involved in the warrant , you can hit the judge with this as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot: 'violation of constitutional rights under color of law'Since there was no crime involved in the warrant, you can hit the judge with this as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023</id>
	<title>Encrypt, encrypt!!!!</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1244832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. This is one more example of why we all should make strong and daily use of encryption. Of course, the next thing they'll try is "Use of Encryption is Suspicious!"

<p>

Well, they can prance all they wanna. They can't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you. But, of course, you do recall how forgetful you are? Or did you forget!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
This is one more example of why we all should make strong and daily use of encryption .
Of course , the next thing they 'll try is " Use of Encryption is Suspicious !
" Well , they can prance all they wan na .
They ca n't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you .
But , of course , you do recall how forgetful you are ?
Or did you forget !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
This is one more example of why we all should make strong and daily use of encryption.
Of course, the next thing they'll try is "Use of Encryption is Suspicious!
"



Well, they can prance all they wanna.
They can't do diddly unless they get the passphrase from you.
But, of course, you do recall how forgetful you are?
Or did you forget!
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317819</id>
	<title>Re:Police Use Resources at Their Discretion</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1244834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The cops requested a warrant correctly addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes, but THAT ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW, so it's not grounds for a warrant, or any other action by the police.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cops requested a warrant correctly addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone .
Yes , but THAT IS N'T AGAINST THE LAW , so it 's not grounds for a warrant , or any other action by the police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cops requested a warrant correctly addressing the only problem anyone was having--the fact that Calixte may have been impersonating someone.
Yes, but THAT ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW, so it's not grounds for a warrant, or any other action by the police.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315</id>
	<title>Can illegally obtained evidence be used ?</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1244829900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can evidence illegally seized in this alleged criminal case be used in a civil case? Can MP/RIAA legal thugs use the content of this ruling as basis to sue this student for copyright infringement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can evidence illegally seized in this alleged criminal case be used in a civil case ?
Can MP/RIAA legal thugs use the content of this ruling as basis to sue this student for copyright infringement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can evidence illegally seized in this alleged criminal case be used in a civil case?
Can MP/RIAA legal thugs use the content of this ruling as basis to sue this student for copyright infringement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310127</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, please move along</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1244829060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police seized a laptop on the wrong statute, and didn't actually do any investigative work on things for which the state allows someone to seize a laptop. Yes we can have a discussion about whether it's appropriate to be able to seize a laptop for copyright accusations, but this looks like a scare analysis rather than anything actually insightful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police seized a laptop on the wrong statute , and did n't actually do any investigative work on things for which the state allows someone to seize a laptop .
Yes we can have a discussion about whether it 's appropriate to be able to seize a laptop for copyright accusations , but this looks like a scare analysis rather than anything actually insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police seized a laptop on the wrong statute, and didn't actually do any investigative work on things for which the state allows someone to seize a laptop.
Yes we can have a discussion about whether it's appropriate to be able to seize a laptop for copyright accusations, but this looks like a scare analysis rather than anything actually insightful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310777</id>
	<title>Re:Moral of the Story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank goodness most criminals impulsively fail to plan!<br>Of course, if the crooks planned they probably wouldn't do most of the criminal stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness most criminals impulsively fail to plan ! Of course , if the crooks planned they probably would n't do most of the criminal stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness most criminals impulsively fail to plan!Of course, if the crooks planned they probably wouldn't do most of the criminal stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310337</id>
	<title>Re:My analysis....(IANAL)</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1244829960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first think I would do in this guy's situation is to sue the city...</p></div><p>There has to be a way of punishing the guilty without punishing the tax payer. Suing your own government is just kicking yourself in the ass. It solves nothing, makes lawyers rich, gives some money to the victim, and likely does nothing to the perpetrators of the crime who committed the offense. In the case of the police, they will be looking after each other (like in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey\_Dahmer" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jeffrey Dahmer</a> [wikipedia.org] case where the police officer who was responsible for sending a naked juvenile to his death was re-hired [after being fired by public outrage] and promoted through union pressure).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first think I would do in this guy 's situation is to sue the city...There has to be a way of punishing the guilty without punishing the tax payer .
Suing your own government is just kicking yourself in the ass .
It solves nothing , makes lawyers rich , gives some money to the victim , and likely does nothing to the perpetrators of the crime who committed the offense .
In the case of the police , they will be looking after each other ( like in the Jeffrey Dahmer [ wikipedia.org ] case where the police officer who was responsible for sending a naked juvenile to his death was re-hired [ after being fired by public outrage ] and promoted through union pressure ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first think I would do in this guy's situation is to sue the city...There has to be a way of punishing the guilty without punishing the tax payer.
Suing your own government is just kicking yourself in the ass.
It solves nothing, makes lawyers rich, gives some money to the victim, and likely does nothing to the perpetrators of the crime who committed the offense.
In the case of the police, they will be looking after each other (like in the Jeffrey Dahmer [wikipedia.org] case where the police officer who was responsible for sending a naked juvenile to his death was re-hired [after being fired by public outrage] and promoted through union pressure).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761</id>
	<title>Re:The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen? Stealing is stealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen ?
Stealing is stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's more okay to steal from corporations than from your average citizen?
Stealing is stealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311775</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1244835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've hit on the biggest underlying problem with copyrighting art.<br> <br>

You see, beauty, and pleasure are subjective. Therefore, a movie/song/painting/performance that one person may enjoy, I may find complete shit. When you produce a widget who's value to the consumer is subjective and does not follow normal economics, you shouldn't be allowed to claim your widget has any value at all. At that point it's your opinion that your widget has a monetary value. If anything, the actual value would be in a strict sense, your man hours spent in production along with the cost of the raw materials... As anything above and beyond that, as I said, is subjective.
<br> <br>
I produced a music album; I think it's worth $10,000,000USD; I think if people steal copies of it I should sue for unconstitutional damages because I lost $10,000,000. Sound familiar?
<br> <br>
Art is not a normal commodity, it does not have an intrinsic value. The price of art is subjectively assigned <b> <i>only</i> </b> by people that value it. Ie, if I pirate 1 million copies of THE WORST selling, worst rated, album, did the distributor really lose 1,000,000 * retail price?
<br> <br>
This is exactly why pirating digital art doesn't hurt anyone. Period. <b> <i>Software</i> </b> is a completely different story...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've hit on the biggest underlying problem with copyrighting art .
You see , beauty , and pleasure are subjective .
Therefore , a movie/song/painting/performance that one person may enjoy , I may find complete shit .
When you produce a widget who 's value to the consumer is subjective and does not follow normal economics , you should n't be allowed to claim your widget has any value at all .
At that point it 's your opinion that your widget has a monetary value .
If anything , the actual value would be in a strict sense , your man hours spent in production along with the cost of the raw materials... As anything above and beyond that , as I said , is subjective .
I produced a music album ; I think it 's worth $ 10,000,000USD ; I think if people steal copies of it I should sue for unconstitutional damages because I lost $ 10,000,000 .
Sound familiar ?
Art is not a normal commodity , it does not have an intrinsic value .
The price of art is subjectively assigned only by people that value it .
Ie , if I pirate 1 million copies of THE WORST selling , worst rated , album , did the distributor really lose 1,000,000 * retail price ?
This is exactly why pirating digital art does n't hurt anyone .
Period. Software is a completely different story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've hit on the biggest underlying problem with copyrighting art.
You see, beauty, and pleasure are subjective.
Therefore, a movie/song/painting/performance that one person may enjoy, I may find complete shit.
When you produce a widget who's value to the consumer is subjective and does not follow normal economics, you shouldn't be allowed to claim your widget has any value at all.
At that point it's your opinion that your widget has a monetary value.
If anything, the actual value would be in a strict sense, your man hours spent in production along with the cost of the raw materials... As anything above and beyond that, as I said, is subjective.
I produced a music album; I think it's worth $10,000,000USD; I think if people steal copies of it I should sue for unconstitutional damages because I lost $10,000,000.
Sound familiar?
Art is not a normal commodity, it does not have an intrinsic value.
The price of art is subjectively assigned  only  by people that value it.
Ie, if I pirate 1 million copies of THE WORST selling, worst rated, album, did the distributor really lose 1,000,000 * retail price?
This is exactly why pirating digital art doesn't hurt anyone.
Period.  Software  is a completely different story...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029</id>
	<title>The legal system is too biassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen? its ridiculous and very wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen ?
its ridiculous and very wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck does the law make an imessuarably small dent in a megacorporations profits more important than fraud being perpetrated against a citizen?
its ridiculous and very wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313581</id>
	<title>Re:If they can't find it</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1244798700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say this like its a joke.</p><p>Its not uncommon by any stretch to have something seized or impounded, only to find that the responsible organization can no longer find it.  You can threaten them with legal action, but then you have to prove the following:</p><p>A:  That you owned said item.<br>B:  That you had said item with you at the time of seizure.<br>C:  That said item was seized.<br>D:  That said item wasn't returned.</p><p>Its pretty fucking hard to prove all of those things.  You better have receipts/statements showing you had it, some kind of 'proof' of seizure with time/date and signed by someone, and certified mail saying that they were unable to find your item.  If you're missing any of that, don't hold your breath when trying to get things back.</p><p>Remember how long it took for them to figure out that Detroit was keeping whichever impounded cars they wanted, by saying they didn't have it?  Remember how many people got their cars back after the fact?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say this like its a joke.Its not uncommon by any stretch to have something seized or impounded , only to find that the responsible organization can no longer find it .
You can threaten them with legal action , but then you have to prove the following : A : That you owned said item.B : That you had said item with you at the time of seizure.C : That said item was seized.D : That said item was n't returned.Its pretty fucking hard to prove all of those things .
You better have receipts/statements showing you had it , some kind of 'proof ' of seizure with time/date and signed by someone , and certified mail saying that they were unable to find your item .
If you 're missing any of that , do n't hold your breath when trying to get things back.Remember how long it took for them to figure out that Detroit was keeping whichever impounded cars they wanted , by saying they did n't have it ?
Remember how many people got their cars back after the fact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say this like its a joke.Its not uncommon by any stretch to have something seized or impounded, only to find that the responsible organization can no longer find it.
You can threaten them with legal action, but then you have to prove the following:A:  That you owned said item.B:  That you had said item with you at the time of seizure.C:  That said item was seized.D:  That said item wasn't returned.Its pretty fucking hard to prove all of those things.
You better have receipts/statements showing you had it, some kind of 'proof' of seizure with time/date and signed by someone, and certified mail saying that they were unable to find your item.
If you're missing any of that, don't hold your breath when trying to get things back.Remember how long it took for them to figure out that Detroit was keeping whichever impounded cars they wanted, by saying they didn't have it?
Remember how many people got their cars back after the fact?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317169</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr</title>
	<author>mr\_stinky\_britches</author>
	<datestamp>1244825160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That "Anonymouse Cowardon" is just a little devil, isn't he!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That " Anonymouse Cowardon " is just a little devil , is n't he !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That "Anonymouse Cowardon" is just a little devil, isn't he!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165</id>
	<title>Those are only for the little people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Police and Government don't have to play by those rules. They are only for you.<br>That is why we have a Secretary of the Treasury that is a Tax cheat. That is why police can do no knock searches on the wrong location without going to jail for breaking and entering. The qualified immunity of police has become an unqualified immunity in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Police and Government do n't have to play by those rules .
They are only for you.That is why we have a Secretary of the Treasury that is a Tax cheat .
That is why police can do no knock searches on the wrong location without going to jail for breaking and entering .
The qualified immunity of police has become an unqualified immunity in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Police and Government don't have to play by those rules.
They are only for you.That is why we have a Secretary of the Treasury that is a Tax cheat.
That is why police can do no knock searches on the wrong location without going to jail for breaking and entering.
The qualified immunity of police has become an unqualified immunity in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313553</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying fallacy</title>
	<author>midicase</author>
	<datestamp>1244798640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how do you define "shortfall" as used above?.</p></div><p>Using the same method the White House uses to estimate "saved jobs"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do you define " shortfall " as used above ? .Using the same method the White House uses to estimate " saved jobs " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do you define "shortfall" as used above?.Using the same method the White House uses to estimate "saved jobs"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311181</id>
	<title>Re:Can illegally obtained evidence be used ?</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1244833260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see why not.  You don't collect evidence the same way in a civil suit, after all.  You go through a period of "discovery" and whatnot, where you gather evidence.  What may have been illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case could be easily discovered evidence in a civil case.

Of course, IANAL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why not .
You do n't collect evidence the same way in a civil suit , after all .
You go through a period of " discovery " and whatnot , where you gather evidence .
What may have been illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case could be easily discovered evidence in a civil case .
Of course , IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why not.
You don't collect evidence the same way in a civil suit, after all.
You go through a period of "discovery" and whatnot, where you gather evidence.
What may have been illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case could be easily discovered evidence in a civil case.
Of course, IANAL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28348517</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you Linus you destroyed my computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I ever find you, you piece of shit, I will pummel you within an inch of your life with magic missiles until you beg for mercy.  Perhaps I will cast chromatic spray for the coup de grace. I will have you know that I am much more powerful than a lowly level 5 dwarf.  Huzzah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ever find you , you piece of shit , I will pummel you within an inch of your life with magic missiles until you beg for mercy .
Perhaps I will cast chromatic spray for the coup de grace .
I will have you know that I am much more powerful than a lowly level 5 dwarf .
Huzzah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I ever find you, you piece of shit, I will pummel you within an inch of your life with magic missiles until you beg for mercy.
Perhaps I will cast chromatic spray for the coup de grace.
I will have you know that I am much more powerful than a lowly level 5 dwarf.
Huzzah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309863</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28348517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28318523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28319043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1524256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28348517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28309881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28317819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1524256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28319043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28312279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28313743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28310761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28314309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28318523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1524256.28311889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
