<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_2237201</id>
	<title>Climate Change Bill Includes IP Protections</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245074640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>moogsynth writes <i>"Buried in section 329 of the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h2410:">Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410)</a>, voted in recently, are measures to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights in the green tech of American companies. <a href="http://271patent.blogspot.com/2009/06/congress-introduces-ip-protections-for.html">Peter Zura's patent blog</a> notes that 'the vote comes in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. ... Previously, there was <a href="http://cleanip.com.au/2009/04/20/the-debate-surrounding-patents-and-low-carbon-technology-is-heating-up/">sufficient chatter</a> in international circles on compulsory licenses, IP seizures, and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology, that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US's IP position up front.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>moogsynth writes " Buried in section 329 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act ( H.R .
2410 ) , voted in recently , are measures to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights in the green tech of American companies .
Peter Zura 's patent blog notes that 'the vote comes in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change .
... Previously , there was sufficient chatter in international circles on compulsory licenses , IP seizures , and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology , that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US 's IP position up front .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moogsynth writes "Buried in section 329 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R.
2410), voted in recently, are measures to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights in the green tech of American companies.
Peter Zura's patent blog notes that 'the vote comes in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
... Previously, there was sufficient chatter in international circles on compulsory licenses, IP seizures, and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology, that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US's IP position up front.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350267</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1245177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.</p></div><p>Normally it is woo first</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.Normally it is woo first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.Normally it is woo first
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348367</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1245171120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many of those countries are actually fulfilling their obligations under Kyoto? Based on the last I heard, none of the countries that signed the protocol that the protocol actually called for any action from have come anywhere close to fulfilling their obligations under the treaty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of those countries are actually fulfilling their obligations under Kyoto ?
Based on the last I heard , none of the countries that signed the protocol that the protocol actually called for any action from have come anywhere close to fulfilling their obligations under the treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of those countries are actually fulfilling their obligations under Kyoto?
Based on the last I heard, none of the countries that signed the protocol that the protocol actually called for any action from have come anywhere close to fulfilling their obligations under the treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346687</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1245161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really quite frustrating.</p></div><p>What's frustrating to me is that of all the nations who ratified the Kyoto protocol, 3 of them have done anything about it, yet people are still harping Americans because a former president didn't sign it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really quite frustrating.What 's frustrating to me is that of all the nations who ratified the Kyoto protocol , 3 of them have done anything about it , yet people are still harping Americans because a former president did n't sign it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really quite frustrating.What's frustrating to me is that of all the nations who ratified the Kyoto protocol, 3 of them have done anything about it, yet people are still harping Americans because a former president didn't sign it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345521</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they are only marionettes?</p><p>That's the "nice" thing about this system. You can have a dictatory government, and nobody knows it. You just play the lobby, and regularly let the people choose, which group of your strawmen they like the most.</p><p>People, become lobbyists! I recommend destroying Monsanto from the inside. Feed them their own toxines.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they are only marionettes ? That 's the " nice " thing about this system .
You can have a dictatory government , and nobody knows it .
You just play the lobby , and regularly let the people choose , which group of your strawmen they like the most.People , become lobbyists !
I recommend destroying Monsanto from the inside .
Feed them their own toxines .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they are only marionettes?That's the "nice" thing about this system.
You can have a dictatory government, and nobody knows it.
You just play the lobby, and regularly let the people choose, which group of your strawmen they like the most.People, become lobbyists!
I recommend destroying Monsanto from the inside.
Feed them their own toxines.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343823</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>siddesu</author>
	<datestamp>1245082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Punished"? And I thought it was about "leadership" and "taking responsibility".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Punished " ?
And I thought it was about " leadership " and " taking responsibility " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Punished"?
And I thought it was about "leadership" and "taking responsibility".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28352985</id>
	<title>Our position</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'd like to save the world and all that, but honestly we'd rather ensure that when everyone dies, we're the richest.

</p><p>.

</p><p>Actually, it seems to me that our national policy should keep in mind that education in the USA is subpar, as  is the scale of cleaner energy.  Therefore we're likely to continue to steadily fall behind in the era of clean energy research.  I would think that it makes sense for us to try to anticipate needing to borrow IP from more advanced countries.  More financial incentive is wonderful <i>if</i> you have the tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd like to save the world and all that , but honestly we 'd rather ensure that when everyone dies , we 're the richest .
. Actually , it seems to me that our national policy should keep in mind that education in the USA is subpar , as is the scale of cleaner energy .
Therefore we 're likely to continue to steadily fall behind in the era of clean energy research .
I would think that it makes sense for us to try to anticipate needing to borrow IP from more advanced countries .
More financial incentive is wonderful if you have the tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd like to save the world and all that, but honestly we'd rather ensure that when everyone dies, we're the richest.
.

Actually, it seems to me that our national policy should keep in mind that education in the USA is subpar, as  is the scale of cleaner energy.
Therefore we're likely to continue to steadily fall behind in the era of clean energy research.
I would think that it makes sense for us to try to anticipate needing to borrow IP from more advanced countries.
More financial incentive is wonderful if you have the tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344263</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Are people really this dumb?  China's emissions have been rapidly increasing because of all of the manufacturing jobs being sent there, primarily from the US.  If the US had to reduce emissions, that trend would increase rapidly.  It's already usually cheaper to produce in China, but that would make it a LOT cheaper.  And, since China generally has less pollution controls than the US, over all pollution would probably increase.
</p><p>
Kyoto is a stupid idea; even more so if it's not applied globally.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people really this dumb ?
China 's emissions have been rapidly increasing because of all of the manufacturing jobs being sent there , primarily from the US .
If the US had to reduce emissions , that trend would increase rapidly .
It 's already usually cheaper to produce in China , but that would make it a LOT cheaper .
And , since China generally has less pollution controls than the US , over all pollution would probably increase .
Kyoto is a stupid idea ; even more so if it 's not applied globally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Are people really this dumb?
China's emissions have been rapidly increasing because of all of the manufacturing jobs being sent there, primarily from the US.
If the US had to reduce emissions, that trend would increase rapidly.
It's already usually cheaper to produce in China, but that would make it a LOT cheaper.
And, since China generally has less pollution controls than the US, over all pollution would probably increase.
Kyoto is a stupid idea; even more so if it's not applied globally.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346179</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USA is governed by money, not the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USA is governed by money , not the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USA is governed by money, not the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345703</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245149280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous. That would be like calling<br>&gt; a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.</p><p>Right. And it's not like we europeans have a lower standard of living, \_despite\_ of consuming only half the amount of oil, and producing half the amount of co2 per capita.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous .
That would be like calling &gt; a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.Right .
And it 's not like we europeans have a lower standard of living , \ _despite \ _ of consuming only half the amount of oil , and producing half the amount of co2 per capita .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous.
That would be like calling&gt; a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.Right.
And it's not like we europeans have a lower standard of living, \_despite\_ of consuming only half the amount of oil, and producing half the amount of co2 per capita.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28357907</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah....Monopolising any solutions for profit is FAR more important than addressing the immediate problem.</p><p>It's become the American way....which is why America is forever deeper in sh*t.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah....Monopolising any solutions for profit is FAR more important than addressing the immediate problem.It 's become the American way....which is why America is forever deeper in sh * t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah....Monopolising any solutions for profit is FAR more important than addressing the immediate problem.It's become the American way....which is why America is forever deeper in sh*t.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28358705</id>
	<title>just typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rudy manky wankey yankie attitude screw the rest of the world we are the only ones that matter well screw you too !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rudy manky wankey yankie attitude screw the rest of the world we are the only ones that matter well screw you too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rudy manky wankey yankie attitude screw the rest of the world we are the only ones that matter well screw you too !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is the single largest carbon emissions producer in the world by a decent margin. China is second and India is far away in fifth place.</p><p>On a per capita basis it's even worse as the US produces <b>five</b> times as much co2 as China and <b>sixteen</b> times as much as India.</p><p>So no, it's only a drop in the bucket if your intelligence makes our previous president look like nobel prize winner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is the single largest carbon emissions producer in the world by a decent margin .
China is second and India is far away in fifth place.On a per capita basis it 's even worse as the US produces five times as much co2 as China and sixteen times as much as India.So no , it 's only a drop in the bucket if your intelligence makes our previous president look like nobel prize winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is the single largest carbon emissions producer in the world by a decent margin.
China is second and India is far away in fifth place.On a per capita basis it's even worse as the US produces five times as much co2 as China and sixteen times as much as India.So no, it's only a drop in the bucket if your intelligence makes our previous president look like nobel prize winner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343533</id>
	<title>Karma whoring for science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206\_041206\_global\_warming.htm" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206\_041206\_global\_warming.htm</a> [nationalgeographic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206 \ _041206 \ _global \ _warming.htm [ nationalgeographic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206\_041206\_global\_warming.htm [nationalgeographic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344163</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1245085380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even environmentalists who attended the conference hated the Kyoto treaty. It was based entirely on political concerns and wrangling rather than actual environmental data or facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even environmentalists who attended the conference hated the Kyoto treaty .
It was based entirely on political concerns and wrangling rather than actual environmental data or facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even environmentalists who attended the conference hated the Kyoto treaty.
It was based entirely on political concerns and wrangling rather than actual environmental data or facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343723</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>znerk</author>
	<datestamp>1245081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... a Map with all countries green except for the US.</p></div><p>... unless you're not color-blind, and notice the handful that are gray (indicating not only that they have not ratified it, but haven't even signed it). The U.S.A. seems to be the only country that <i>has signed but not ratified</i> it. I won't even go into how well most of the other "large nations" are doing at actually meeting the protocol.</p><p>In other words, thanks for the inflammatory comments, now get back under your bridge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a Map with all countries green except for the US.... unless you 're not color-blind , and notice the handful that are gray ( indicating not only that they have not ratified it , but have n't even signed it ) .
The U.S.A. seems to be the only country that has signed but not ratified it .
I wo n't even go into how well most of the other " large nations " are doing at actually meeting the protocol.In other words , thanks for the inflammatory comments , now get back under your bridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a Map with all countries green except for the US.... unless you're not color-blind, and notice the handful that are gray (indicating not only that they have not ratified it, but haven't even signed it).
The U.S.A. seems to be the only country that has signed but not ratified it.
I won't even go into how well most of the other "large nations" are doing at actually meeting the protocol.In other words, thanks for the inflammatory comments, now get back under your bridge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346109</id>
	<title>Re:A win for big Oil?</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1245155700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big Oil would probably be quite glad to be Big Solar or Big Wind if the money keeps on flowing...</p><p>We talk about the RIAA not adjusting for the fact that their business model is dying, well, Big Oil *is* adjusting, kinda</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Oil would probably be quite glad to be Big Solar or Big Wind if the money keeps on flowing...We talk about the RIAA not adjusting for the fact that their business model is dying , well , Big Oil * is * adjusting , kinda</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Oil would probably be quite glad to be Big Solar or Big Wind if the money keeps on flowing...We talk about the RIAA not adjusting for the fact that their business model is dying, well, Big Oil *is* adjusting, kinda</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345869</id>
	<title>Re:Whats wrong with that?</title>
	<author>pimpimpim</author>
	<datestamp>1245152220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP most likely has nothing to do with it. It reminds me of a few years ago when someone (not really clear to me who thought it out) tried to push software patents in the EU via the <a href="http://demo.ffii.org/letter.html" title="ffii.org">agricultural council</a> [ffii.org]. That was AFTER it had already been voted away before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP most likely has nothing to do with it .
It reminds me of a few years ago when someone ( not really clear to me who thought it out ) tried to push software patents in the EU via the agricultural council [ ffii.org ] .
That was AFTER it had already been voted away before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP most likely has nothing to do with it.
It reminds me of a few years ago when someone (not really clear to me who thought it out) tried to push software patents in the EU via the agricultural council [ffii.org].
That was AFTER it had already been voted away before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344097</id>
	<title>Talk about "fiddling while Rome burns"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245084660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're supposed to be dealing with one of the *the* great challenges of our time and instead they're wasting time worrying about a pissy little mote of a side-issue like IP???  Are they completely in-freaking-sane???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're supposed to be dealing with one of the * the * great challenges of our time and instead they 're wasting time worrying about a pissy little mote of a side-issue like IP ? ? ?
Are they completely in-freaking-sane ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're supposed to be dealing with one of the *the* great challenges of our time and instead they're wasting time worrying about a pissy little mote of a side-issue like IP???
Are they completely in-freaking-sane??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343887</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India?</p><p>&gt;Countries by C02 emissions (\% of worldwide emissions)<br>1. United States (22.2\%)<br>2. China (18.4\%)<br>4. India (4.9\%)</p><p>The US creates almost as much C02 emissions as both the countries you mentioned combined. Keep in mind that the we're talking about the emissions of 300 million people versus 2.5 billion people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India ? &gt; Countries by C02 emissions ( \ % of worldwide emissions ) 1 .
United States ( 22.2 \ % ) 2 .
China ( 18.4 \ % ) 4 .
India ( 4.9 \ % ) The US creates almost as much C02 emissions as both the countries you mentioned combined .
Keep in mind that the we 're talking about the emissions of 300 million people versus 2.5 billion people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India?&gt;Countries by C02 emissions (\% of worldwide emissions)1.
United States (22.2\%)2.
China (18.4\%)4.
India (4.9\%)The US creates almost as much C02 emissions as both the countries you mentioned combined.
Keep in mind that the we're talking about the emissions of 300 million people versus 2.5 billion people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343577</id>
	<title>geo engineering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as they dont screw around with the environment trying to "fix" what we dont know is broken, then im happy<br><br>That is of course if im not forced to wear white everything, breath at a certain rate, exercise at certain times, eat certain foods, and other things that generate greenhouse gases (co2 and methane) im fine.<br><br>But seriously, in new york i cant stall in a car. id get a $200 fine if i did.<br><br>Speaking of climate change though, is it legal to build solar panel power plants in the US again, or is it still undergoing "environmental testing"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they dont screw around with the environment trying to " fix " what we dont know is broken , then im happyThat is of course if im not forced to wear white everything , breath at a certain rate , exercise at certain times , eat certain foods , and other things that generate greenhouse gases ( co2 and methane ) im fine.But seriously , in new york i cant stall in a car .
id get a $ 200 fine if i did.Speaking of climate change though , is it legal to build solar panel power plants in the US again , or is it still undergoing " environmental testing " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they dont screw around with the environment trying to "fix" what we dont know is broken, then im happyThat is of course if im not forced to wear white everything, breath at a certain rate, exercise at certain times, eat certain foods, and other things that generate greenhouse gases (co2 and methane) im fine.But seriously, in new york i cant stall in a car.
id get a $200 fine if i did.Speaking of climate change though, is it legal to build solar panel power plants in the US again, or is it still undergoing "environmental testing"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343691</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;America is many things. Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.</p><p>Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous.   That would be like calling a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; America is many things .
Being sadomasicistic is n't one of them.Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous .
That would be like calling a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;America is many things.
Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous.
That would be like calling a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344185</id>
	<title>Democrats are just looking out for the envionment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as long as their big corporate donors are protected.</p><p>And then somebody will tell you the Democrats really are different than the Republicans.  It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as long as their big corporate donors are protected.And then somebody will tell you the Democrats really are different than the Republicans .
It would be funny if it was n't so pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as long as their big corporate donors are protected.And then somebody will tell you the Democrats really are different than the Republicans.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</id>
	<title>I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't a bill about something be only about something?</p><p>"We will bone you hard but we will give you a reach-around..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't a bill about something be only about something ?
" We will bone you hard but we will give you a reach-around... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't a bill about something be only about something?
"We will bone you hard but we will give you a reach-around..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345261</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Hellsbells</author>
	<datestamp>1245185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US also has an incredible amount to lose by not signing the Kyoto protocol.</p><p>If we can't get China and India to limit their CO2 emissions and their emissions rise to western nation per capita levels, then the US is screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US also has an incredible amount to lose by not signing the Kyoto protocol.If we ca n't get China and India to limit their CO2 emissions and their emissions rise to western nation per capita levels , then the US is screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US also has an incredible amount to lose by not signing the Kyoto protocol.If we can't get China and India to limit their CO2 emissions and their emissions rise to western nation per capita levels, then the US is screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867</id>
	<title>A win for big Oil?</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1245082500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective.</p><p>
Unintentionally, this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it 's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective .
Unintentionally , this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective.
Unintentionally, this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343443</id>
	<title>Oooops</title>
	<author>zegebbers</author>
	<datestamp>1245078540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not this bill <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Kininmonth\_(meteorologist)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Kininmonth\_(meteorologist)</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>not this bill http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William \ _Kininmonth \ _ ( meteorologist ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not this bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Kininmonth\_(meteorologist) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345041</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1245182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that the majority holds power is typically how a democracy is defined, but it's not the only common attribute most modern democracies have. Another one is the rule of law and the separation of powers, meaning that the majority can't just do whatever the hell it wants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the majority holds power is typically how a democracy is defined , but it 's not the only common attribute most modern democracies have .
Another one is the rule of law and the separation of powers , meaning that the majority ca n't just do whatever the hell it wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the majority holds power is typically how a democracy is defined, but it's not the only common attribute most modern democracies have.
Another one is the rule of law and the separation of powers, meaning that the majority can't just do whatever the hell it wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343857</id>
	<title>Sad?</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1245082440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This shows how the USA are 'into' it, even if the CO2 myth would be real: They'd rather suffer from a bad climate *AND* *WORSE* than give up their IP. How sad is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This shows how the USA are 'into ' it , even if the CO2 myth would be real : They 'd rather suffer from a bad climate * AND * * WORSE * than give up their IP .
How sad is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shows how the USA are 'into' it, even if the CO2 myth would be real: They'd rather suffer from a bad climate *AND* *WORSE* than give up their IP.
How sad is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28351255</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1245180840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That, and that there is something to be said for two groups coming together and achieving a compromise. Let's say group A wants lower taxes, group B wants health care. It makes sense for them to work something out that says:

<ol>
<li>Cut tax A</li><li>Cut Spending B and C</li><li>pay for healthcare</li></ol><p>

There is little reason for politicians to ever work together if the party in power can cut out items 1 and 2, or item 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , and that there is something to be said for two groups coming together and achieving a compromise .
Let 's say group A wants lower taxes , group B wants health care .
It makes sense for them to work something out that says : Cut tax ACut Spending B and Cpay for healthcare There is little reason for politicians to ever work together if the party in power can cut out items 1 and 2 , or item 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, and that there is something to be said for two groups coming together and achieving a compromise.
Let's say group A wants lower taxes, group B wants health care.
It makes sense for them to work something out that says:


Cut tax ACut Spending B and Cpay for healthcare

There is little reason for politicians to ever work together if the party in power can cut out items 1 and 2, or item 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.</p><p>This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living.  The only reason it seems otherwise is because the proponents of such arguments ignore things like choking on car exhaust in their standard of living calculations, but make sure to point out that they will have to downgrade to a 43" TV from a 52" to save power.  Nevermind the fact that it pays off the long term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read this month 's Scientific American cover story " The Top 10 myths about Sustainability " , which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.This is a point that always seemed obvious to me : investing in technology never lowers anyone 's standard of living .
The only reason it seems otherwise is because the proponents of such arguments ignore things like choking on car exhaust in their standard of living calculations , but make sure to point out that they will have to downgrade to a 43 " TV from a 52 " to save power .
Nevermind the fact that it pays off the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living.
The only reason it seems otherwise is because the proponents of such arguments ignore things like choking on car exhaust in their standard of living calculations, but make sure to point out that they will have to downgrade to a 43" TV from a 52" to save power.
Nevermind the fact that it pays off the long term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344579</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Mean Variance</author>
	<datestamp>1245090060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wait , isn't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ?</p></div><p>IANAPS (I'm not a political scientist). However, I think the pure answer to your question is yes. However, as I understand, the U.S. is not a democracy; it's a republic which uses multiple forms of representation, i.e. House and Senate, who themselves are democratically elected, but that composite doesn't imply pure democracy, nor does their decision-making process imply democracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , is n't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ? IANAPS ( I 'm not a political scientist ) .
However , I think the pure answer to your question is yes .
However , as I understand , the U.S. is not a democracy ; it 's a republic which uses multiple forms of representation , i.e .
House and Senate , who themselves are democratically elected , but that composite does n't imply pure democracy , nor does their decision-making process imply democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait , isn't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ?IANAPS (I'm not a political scientist).
However, I think the pure answer to your question is yes.
However, as I understand, the U.S. is not a democracy; it's a republic which uses multiple forms of representation, i.e.
House and Senate, who themselves are democratically elected, but that composite doesn't imply pure democracy, nor does their decision-making process imply democracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the rules apply equally to all countries, no problem.  When China and India get a pass and the US would get economy destroying limits, well, then it's a major problem.</p><p>I have news for you - the US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India.</p><p>Kyoto is broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the rules apply equally to all countries , no problem .
When China and India get a pass and the US would get economy destroying limits , well , then it 's a major problem.I have news for you - the US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India.Kyoto is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the rules apply equally to all countries, no problem.
When China and India get a pass and the US would get economy destroying limits, well, then it's a major problem.I have news for you - the US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India.Kyoto is broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344519</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here is the stats from 5 YEARS AGO</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Over two years ago, China over took America. India is number 3 and will pass America in about 2 years. In terms of PER CAPITA, we are also down the list. In 2004, was our highest per capitia, and we were at #10.</a> [guardian.co.uk] Since that time, we have gone down slightly, while many other nations have moved up and have surpasses us.<br>
&nbsp; And comparing China and india to America in terms of PER CAPITA is a joke. It is TOTAL pollution that matters.</p><p>The other issue that you forgot is that CURRENTLY China emits more TOTAL POLLUTION (ignoring CO2), then America has COMMULATIVELY. We NEVER allowed it to get anywhere near as bad as China has. Likewise, even india and Russia are major polluters in the world.</p><p>To balance this on the west's back is just plain wrong. The west MUST deal with this by encouraging all nations to think long term. To do this, we must impliment a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS BASED on CO2 emission and pollution that went into it. IOW, if something is consumed in Ill, and it was made in texas, than the amount of CO2 from its power plant, the trucks to transport it, and even the ingrediants that went into it should figure into it. OR, we can just say that Texas had ex amount of CO2 from there, and then apply a tax on it. Something from france which uses heavy nukes would have less tax due to power. OTH, China has LARGEST TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 and by far, the largest amount of pollution and should be hit the highest tax. This will encourage ALL major polluting countries to re-think how they are handling things. Hopefully EU will re-think kyoto which is proving to be WORTHLESS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here is the stats from 5 YEARS AGO [ wikipedia.org ] Over two years ago , China over took America .
India is number 3 and will pass America in about 2 years .
In terms of PER CAPITA , we are also down the list .
In 2004 , was our highest per capitia , and we were at # 10 .
[ guardian.co.uk ] Since that time , we have gone down slightly , while many other nations have moved up and have surpasses us .
  And comparing China and india to America in terms of PER CAPITA is a joke .
It is TOTAL pollution that matters.The other issue that you forgot is that CURRENTLY China emits more TOTAL POLLUTION ( ignoring CO2 ) , then America has COMMULATIVELY .
We NEVER allowed it to get anywhere near as bad as China has .
Likewise , even india and Russia are major polluters in the world.To balance this on the west 's back is just plain wrong .
The west MUST deal with this by encouraging all nations to think long term .
To do this , we must impliment a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS BASED on CO2 emission and pollution that went into it .
IOW , if something is consumed in Ill , and it was made in texas , than the amount of CO2 from its power plant , the trucks to transport it , and even the ingrediants that went into it should figure into it .
OR , we can just say that Texas had ex amount of CO2 from there , and then apply a tax on it .
Something from france which uses heavy nukes would have less tax due to power .
OTH , China has LARGEST TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 and by far , the largest amount of pollution and should be hit the highest tax .
This will encourage ALL major polluting countries to re-think how they are handling things .
Hopefully EU will re-think kyoto which is proving to be WORTHLESS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here is the stats from 5 YEARS AGO [wikipedia.org]Over two years ago, China over took America.
India is number 3 and will pass America in about 2 years.
In terms of PER CAPITA, we are also down the list.
In 2004, was our highest per capitia, and we were at #10.
[guardian.co.uk] Since that time, we have gone down slightly, while many other nations have moved up and have surpasses us.
  And comparing China and india to America in terms of PER CAPITA is a joke.
It is TOTAL pollution that matters.The other issue that you forgot is that CURRENTLY China emits more TOTAL POLLUTION (ignoring CO2), then America has COMMULATIVELY.
We NEVER allowed it to get anywhere near as bad as China has.
Likewise, even india and Russia are major polluters in the world.To balance this on the west's back is just plain wrong.
The west MUST deal with this by encouraging all nations to think long term.
To do this, we must impliment a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS BASED on CO2 emission and pollution that went into it.
IOW, if something is consumed in Ill, and it was made in texas, than the amount of CO2 from its power plant, the trucks to transport it, and even the ingrediants that went into it should figure into it.
OR, we can just say that Texas had ex amount of CO2 from there, and then apply a tax on it.
Something from france which uses heavy nukes would have less tax due to power.
OTH, China has LARGEST TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 and by far, the largest amount of pollution and should be hit the highest tax.
This will encourage ALL major polluting countries to re-think how they are handling things.
Hopefully EU will re-think kyoto which is proving to be WORTHLESS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344035</id>
	<title>Re:Whats wrong with that?</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1245084120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem is this means either corporations and individuals will be forced to pay licensing fees of some sort if any of the technology covered by various other corporations IP is needed to meet any form of emissions or "green" requirements. It's either that, or there will be a limit on how much "green" can be required, and it would be stopped at the point where there is any licensing fee for the technology.</p><p>It means more profit for companies at the cost of the environment or the individual. So it's pretty much par for the course, but that's not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is this means either corporations and individuals will be forced to pay licensing fees of some sort if any of the technology covered by various other corporations IP is needed to meet any form of emissions or " green " requirements .
It 's either that , or there will be a limit on how much " green " can be required , and it would be stopped at the point where there is any licensing fee for the technology.It means more profit for companies at the cost of the environment or the individual .
So it 's pretty much par for the course , but that 's not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is this means either corporations and individuals will be forced to pay licensing fees of some sort if any of the technology covered by various other corporations IP is needed to meet any form of emissions or "green" requirements.
It's either that, or there will be a limit on how much "green" can be required, and it would be stopped at the point where there is any licensing fee for the technology.It means more profit for companies at the cost of the environment or the individual.
So it's pretty much par for the course, but that's not a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345623</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245148080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it some of those attachments are GOOD</p></div><p>If they actually are good they can survive on their own merit. If they need to be a rider to get through, then by definition they aren't good enough to pass into law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it some of those attachments are GOODIf they actually are good they can survive on their own merit .
If they need to be a rider to get through , then by definition they are n't good enough to pass into law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it some of those attachments are GOODIf they actually are good they can survive on their own merit.
If they need to be a rider to get through, then by definition they aren't good enough to pass into law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344085</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1245084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And where in the constitution is the topic of intellectual property covered? In what way does legally obliging the federal government to not sign any treaty that may "weaken the stance of American intellectual property" then subvert the constitution?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And where in the constitution is the topic of intellectual property covered ?
In what way does legally obliging the federal government to not sign any treaty that may " weaken the stance of American intellectual property " then subvert the constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where in the constitution is the topic of intellectual property covered?
In what way does legally obliging the federal government to not sign any treaty that may "weaken the stance of American intellectual property" then subvert the constitution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345341</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245143520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>America is many things. Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Iraq would disagree. The US has pretty much tied up, whipped and screwed them pretty bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is many things .
Being sadomasicistic is n't one of them .
Iraq would disagree .
The US has pretty much tied up , whipped and screwed them pretty bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is many things.
Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.
Iraq would disagree.
The US has pretty much tied up, whipped and screwed them pretty bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346767</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well sure, we're compelled to honor treaties.<br>The 400 or so treaties to the natives here we had our fingers crossed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well sure , we 're compelled to honor treaties.The 400 or so treaties to the natives here we had our fingers crossed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well sure, we're compelled to honor treaties.The 400 or so treaties to the natives here we had our fingers crossed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</id>
	<title>It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance.  Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.</p><p>Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law.  In the pantheon of things,  a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law.  Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance .
Let 's be real , it 's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living , and so everyone is looking to say they were against it , right up until they vote for it.Bottom line is , a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law .
In the pantheon of things , a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law .
Shrewd critics , on both sides of the aisle , have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution , because it only needs the Senate to approve , not the house , and a treaty carries so much force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance.
Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law.
In the pantheon of things,  a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law.
Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1245088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majority</p></div><p>Wait , isn't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ?</p><p>The only reason they add these things in attachment is because they hope no one will notice until it's too late . And that's because they know the majority of people won't approve ( otherwise they would do it openly ) .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majorityWait , is n't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ? The only reason they add these things in attachment is because they hope no one will notice until it 's too late .
And that 's because they know the majority of people wo n't approve ( otherwise they would do it openly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majorityWait , isn't the point of a democracy to give power to the majority ?The only reason they add these things in attachment is because they hope no one will notice until it's too late .
And that's because they know the majority of people won't approve ( otherwise they would do it openly ) .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350385</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1245177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry im from the UK and i know we have not reduced our emissions and are going to fail the Kyoto protocol badly and the politicians don't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry im from the UK and i know we have not reduced our emissions and are going to fail the Kyoto protocol badly and the politicians do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry im from the UK and i know we have not reduced our emissions and are going to fail the Kyoto protocol badly and the politicians don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343879</id>
	<title>Shortcut link to the provision</title>
	<author>donnydonny</author>
	<datestamp>1245082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the actual legislative language of the IP provision:

<a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2410/text?version=rh&amp;nid=t0:rh:985" title="opencongress.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2410/text?version=rh&amp;nid=t0:rh:985</a> [opencongress.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the actual legislative language of the IP provision : http : //www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2410/text ? version = rh&amp;nid = t0 : rh : 985 [ opencongress.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the actual legislative language of the IP provision:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2410/text?version=rh&amp;nid=t0:rh:985 [opencongress.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345831</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245151560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously. Call. Slashdot 'em.</p></div><p>Yes, let us do that.. HEY, WHO ARE YOU, WHAT ARE...</p><p>Actually, i disagree, let us not do that, All Hail Congress!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Call. Slashdot 'em.Yes , let us do that.. HEY , WHO ARE YOU , WHAT ARE...Actually , i disagree , let us not do that , All Hail Congress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Call. Slashdot 'em.Yes, let us do that.. HEY, WHO ARE YOU, WHAT ARE...Actually, i disagree, let us not do that, All Hail Congress!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345003</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>YouDoNotWantToKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1245095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, ditching your SUV is like the most masochistic thing possible. Not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , ditching your SUV is like the most masochistic thing possible .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, ditching your SUV is like the most masochistic thing possible.
Not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</id>
	<title>America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America is the only large nation opposing (positive) climate change. They're the only ones which are having problems with the Kyoto Protocol. Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.</p><p>America seriously has attitude problems...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is the only large nation opposing ( positive ) climate change .
They 're the only ones which are having problems with the Kyoto Protocol .
Search " Kyoto Protocol " in wikipedia and see what you get , a Map with all countries green except for the US.America seriously has attitude problems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is the only large nation opposing (positive) climate change.
They're the only ones which are having problems with the Kyoto Protocol.
Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.America seriously has attitude problems...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343995</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Scamwise</author>
	<datestamp>1245083640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone obviously knows absolutely nothing about the CO2 emmissions of various countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone obviously knows absolutely nothing about the CO2 emmissions of various countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone obviously knows absolutely nothing about the CO2 emmissions of various countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344663</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1245091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with line-item veto, or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of "sneaking things into" a bill, is that the party in power (majority party) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they don't like, or ADD whatever they want to any bill, confident that they will be able to pass it.</p></div><p>Line item Veto does not ADD items to bills, nor does it make it easier for the majority to ADD items to bills.</p><p>All it does is to make it possible for the Executive branch to kill entire projects.  Not add them, not change them.</p><p>Line item veto is used in several US states, quite successfully.  It does not lead to abuse.</p><p>Minority projects still make it in.  Often these are negotiated in advance with the Governor's office to assure no line item veto, often in exchange for allowing majority projects thru.</p><p>Governors virtually never turn around and line-item veto projects thusly agreed upon, to do so would poison the well.</p><p>Any state that elects a super-majority from one party deserves exactly the kind of government they elected, and soon learns the wisdom of their way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with line-item veto , or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of " sneaking things into " a bill , is that the party in power ( majority party ) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they do n't like , or ADD whatever they want to any bill , confident that they will be able to pass it.Line item Veto does not ADD items to bills , nor does it make it easier for the majority to ADD items to bills.All it does is to make it possible for the Executive branch to kill entire projects .
Not add them , not change them.Line item veto is used in several US states , quite successfully .
It does not lead to abuse.Minority projects still make it in .
Often these are negotiated in advance with the Governor 's office to assure no line item veto , often in exchange for allowing majority projects thru.Governors virtually never turn around and line-item veto projects thusly agreed upon , to do so would poison the well.Any state that elects a super-majority from one party deserves exactly the kind of government they elected , and soon learns the wisdom of their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with line-item veto, or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of "sneaking things into" a bill, is that the party in power (majority party) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they don't like, or ADD whatever they want to any bill, confident that they will be able to pass it.Line item Veto does not ADD items to bills, nor does it make it easier for the majority to ADD items to bills.All it does is to make it possible for the Executive branch to kill entire projects.
Not add them, not change them.Line item veto is used in several US states, quite successfully.
It does not lead to abuse.Minority projects still make it in.
Often these are negotiated in advance with the Governor's office to assure no line item veto, often in exchange for allowing majority projects thru.Governors virtually never turn around and line-item veto projects thusly agreed upon, to do so would poison the well.Any state that elects a super-majority from one party deserves exactly the kind of government they elected, and soon learns the wisdom of their way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343895</id>
	<title>Then fuck u.s. position</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245082800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a new world consensus gets established, u.s. finds itself isolated. then your congressmen can fuck themselves in their little isolated corner. world is not going to listen to shit from rotten as u.s. congressmen while the world is turning upside down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a new world consensus gets established , u.s. finds itself isolated .
then your congressmen can fuck themselves in their little isolated corner .
world is not going to listen to shit from rotten as u.s. congressmen while the world is turning upside down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a new world consensus gets established, u.s. finds itself isolated.
then your congressmen can fuck themselves in their little isolated corner.
world is not going to listen to shit from rotten as u.s. congressmen while the world is turning upside down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28347505</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1245166980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it.  The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was signed by the Clinton administration , but never submitted to the Senate for ratification , because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it .
The Clinton administration did n't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it.
The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344015</id>
	<title>Fair warning: this post will make you think.</title>
	<author>znerk</author>
	<datestamp>1245083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?</p></div><p>I'm generally against giving up my personal freedoms, but if getting implanted with a chip that allows me to be tracked accurately to within 3 meters will help stop the terrorists it's really not that bad, is it?</p><p>Uhm. Yeah. It is. Pork in your bill is <i>always</i> bad, and the IP laws are screwy enough, <i>kthxbai</i>.</p><p>Oh, and another thing... start substituting the word "expensive" when you read "profitable". It makes no sense to me to vote ourselves an automatic 400\% increase in price for "green power" technologies, especially if we're excluding any ideas on making "green power" more affordable (read "more available") simply because they come from another country, and/or might step on copyright/patent toes <b>in this country</b>. <i>(Do you really think China gives a rat's ass about violating American laws? Ask NEC about the counterfeit <b>factories</b> (yes, plural; 18, to be precise) they found because someone RMA'd a DVD player that NEC didn't even make. The workers thought it was a legitimate operation, they had NEC's name and logo all over the building and the uniforms, not just the products. Here, have a <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426001.800-foolproof-fingerprints-the-counterfeit-killers.html" title="newscientist.com">link</a> [newscientist.com].)</i></p><p>(Off-topic rant) My take on IP: 7 years (with a one-time extension of the same duration) was reasonable; 150 years is not. Let the mouse go already, I want my public domain works.</p><p>--<br>Please read and think before you respond or moderate. Thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm generally against IP , but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it 's really not that bad is it ? I 'm generally against giving up my personal freedoms , but if getting implanted with a chip that allows me to be tracked accurately to within 3 meters will help stop the terrorists it 's really not that bad , is it ? Uhm .
Yeah. It is .
Pork in your bill is always bad , and the IP laws are screwy enough , kthxbai.Oh , and another thing... start substituting the word " expensive " when you read " profitable " .
It makes no sense to me to vote ourselves an automatic 400 \ % increase in price for " green power " technologies , especially if we 're excluding any ideas on making " green power " more affordable ( read " more available " ) simply because they come from another country , and/or might step on copyright/patent toes in this country .
( Do you really think China gives a rat 's ass about violating American laws ?
Ask NEC about the counterfeit factories ( yes , plural ; 18 , to be precise ) they found because someone RMA 'd a DVD player that NEC did n't even make .
The workers thought it was a legitimate operation , they had NEC 's name and logo all over the building and the uniforms , not just the products .
Here , have a link [ newscientist.com ] .
) ( Off-topic rant ) My take on IP : 7 years ( with a one-time extension of the same duration ) was reasonable ; 150 years is not .
Let the mouse go already , I want my public domain works.--Please read and think before you respond or moderate .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?I'm generally against giving up my personal freedoms, but if getting implanted with a chip that allows me to be tracked accurately to within 3 meters will help stop the terrorists it's really not that bad, is it?Uhm.
Yeah. It is.
Pork in your bill is always bad, and the IP laws are screwy enough, kthxbai.Oh, and another thing... start substituting the word "expensive" when you read "profitable".
It makes no sense to me to vote ourselves an automatic 400\% increase in price for "green power" technologies, especially if we're excluding any ideas on making "green power" more affordable (read "more available") simply because they come from another country, and/or might step on copyright/patent toes in this country.
(Do you really think China gives a rat's ass about violating American laws?
Ask NEC about the counterfeit factories (yes, plural; 18, to be precise) they found because someone RMA'd a DVD player that NEC didn't even make.
The workers thought it was a legitimate operation, they had NEC's name and logo all over the building and the uniforms, not just the products.
Here, have a link [newscientist.com].
)(Off-topic rant) My take on IP: 7 years (with a one-time extension of the same duration) was reasonable; 150 years is not.
Let the mouse go already, I want my public domain works.--Please read and think before you respond or moderate.
Thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343861</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto. Duh!</i></p><p>You're also one of the nations most likely to be punished by climate change (although losing Florida is probably more reward than punishment).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto .
Duh ! You 're also one of the nations most likely to be punished by climate change ( although losing Florida is probably more reward than punishment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto.
Duh!You're also one of the nations most likely to be punished by climate change (although losing Florida is probably more reward than punishment).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343939</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1245083100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's be real.  Any benefit a "dramatic reduction in our standard of living" would have on the bottom line would be completely swamped by 3rd world countries upgrading their own standard of living.   Thankfully nothing of the sort will be required.  Despite what you might want to believe science really can give us our cake and let us eat it too.  Trying to argue otherwise only drags out the process and increases the toll our environment has to take in the meantime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be real , it 's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living , and so everyone is looking to say they were against it , right up until they vote for it.Let 's be real .
Any benefit a " dramatic reduction in our standard of living " would have on the bottom line would be completely swamped by 3rd world countries upgrading their own standard of living .
Thankfully nothing of the sort will be required .
Despite what you might want to believe science really can give us our cake and let us eat it too .
Trying to argue otherwise only drags out the process and increases the toll our environment has to take in the meantime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.Let's be real.
Any benefit a "dramatic reduction in our standard of living" would have on the bottom line would be completely swamped by 3rd world countries upgrading their own standard of living.
Thankfully nothing of the sort will be required.
Despite what you might want to believe science really can give us our cake and let us eat it too.
Trying to argue otherwise only drags out the process and increases the toll our environment has to take in the meantime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344037</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Logic and Reason</author>
	<datestamp>1245084180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living.</p></div><p>What? Where do you think the money invested in technology comes from? Ultimately, it comes from people's savings, which is money not spent on current consumption. Investing more means saving more, which means a reduction in our current standard of living.<br>
<br>
Moreover, there's no guarantee that investing in any specific technology will raise people's standard of living, even in the future. No matter how much we invest in, say, perpetual motion machines, our standard of living will never increase by much as a result-- certainly not by enough to compensate for all the money we invested in a bogus technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a point that always seemed obvious to me : investing in technology never lowers anyone 's standard of living.What ?
Where do you think the money invested in technology comes from ?
Ultimately , it comes from people 's savings , which is money not spent on current consumption .
Investing more means saving more , which means a reduction in our current standard of living .
Moreover , there 's no guarantee that investing in any specific technology will raise people 's standard of living , even in the future .
No matter how much we invest in , say , perpetual motion machines , our standard of living will never increase by much as a result-- certainly not by enough to compensate for all the money we invested in a bogus technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living.What?
Where do you think the money invested in technology comes from?
Ultimately, it comes from people's savings, which is money not spent on current consumption.
Investing more means saving more, which means a reduction in our current standard of living.
Moreover, there's no guarantee that investing in any specific technology will raise people's standard of living, even in the future.
No matter how much we invest in, say, perpetual motion machines, our standard of living will never increase by much as a result-- certainly not by enough to compensate for all the money we invested in a bogus technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343705</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1245080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't a bill about something be only about something?</p></div><p>Because, without the behind-the-scenes horse trading that results in these kinds of provisions, nothing would ever get passed.</p><p>Wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't a bill about something be only about something ? Because , without the behind-the-scenes horse trading that results in these kinds of provisions , nothing would ever get passed.Wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't a bill about something be only about something?Because, without the behind-the-scenes horse trading that results in these kinds of provisions, nothing would ever get passed.Wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346657</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245161580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Federal Reserve Transparency Act</p></div><p>How do you pronounce that?  "The frat act?" "Tea-Frat act"?</p><p>Is that some sort of wordplay on Tigris and Eufrat?  Tifrat?  The puns are just flowing...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Reserve Transparency ActHow do you pronounce that ?
" The frat act ?
" " Tea-Frat act " ? Is that some sort of wordplay on Tigris and Eufrat ?
Tifrat ? The puns are just flowing... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Reserve Transparency ActHow do you pronounce that?
"The frat act?
" "Tea-Frat act"?Is that some sort of wordplay on Tigris and Eufrat?
Tifrat?  The puns are just flowing... ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>toQDuj</author>
	<datestamp>1245182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but a bad start is better than not participating at all. At least it shows us (non-US) where you (US) stand. The annoying bit was that the treaty was heavily adapted that even America would join, then passed, and then mr new president decides it is not good for the industry (although Denmark has a thriving industry, thankyouverymuch). Really quite frustrating.</p><p>B.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but a bad start is better than not participating at all .
At least it shows us ( non-US ) where you ( US ) stand .
The annoying bit was that the treaty was heavily adapted that even America would join , then passed , and then mr new president decides it is not good for the industry ( although Denmark has a thriving industry , thankyouverymuch ) .
Really quite frustrating.B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but a bad start is better than not participating at all.
At least it shows us (non-US) where you (US) stand.
The annoying bit was that the treaty was heavily adapted that even America would join, then passed, and then mr new president decides it is not good for the industry (although Denmark has a thriving industry, thankyouverymuch).
Really quite frustrating.B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345025</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245182460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nonsense! The per capita emissions rail up more carbon than India's many street-dwellers could even dream of.</p><p>The population of India and China do pose a worrisome picture. But if it's the short-term result of the massive emission rate we're looking at, the US will have to take some action, and FAST.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nonsense !
The per capita emissions rail up more carbon than India 's many street-dwellers could even dream of.The population of India and China do pose a worrisome picture .
But if it 's the short-term result of the massive emission rate we 're looking at , the US will have to take some action , and FAST .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nonsense!
The per capita emissions rail up more carbon than India's many street-dwellers could even dream of.The population of India and China do pose a worrisome picture.
But if it's the short-term result of the massive emission rate we're looking at, the US will have to take some action, and FAST.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345225</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice, but there's no way.  There's plenty of law indicating that a Congress and President that enact something contrary to earlier action are entirely aware of the conflict and specifically chose to do away with the earlier, conflicting portions.  A constitutional amendment might work, sure, but that's only because you're escaping all the decisions that would make the OSTA meaningless.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The presumption is that the lawmakers know and intend what they're doing.  I can't imagine how you do anything, short of a constitutional amendment, that isn't easily repealed by implication the next time some rider amendment gets through.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <i>In any judicial action brought pursuant to Section 5(g) of this Act, the standard of review shall be de novo.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>And now I'm convinced DownsizeDC are idiots.  First, de novo is an appellate standard of review and has nothing to do with the original jurisdiction 5(g) grants.  Second, if they mean that they want the whole Congress 1/Congress 2 line of precedent to be ignored, that's fine, but the weight of the world's political philosophy will have them right back where they started: a later law trumps an earlier one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , but there 's no way .
There 's plenty of law indicating that a Congress and President that enact something contrary to earlier action are entirely aware of the conflict and specifically chose to do away with the earlier , conflicting portions .
A constitutional amendment might work , sure , but that 's only because you 're escaping all the decisions that would make the OSTA meaningless .
  The presumption is that the lawmakers know and intend what they 're doing .
I ca n't imagine how you do anything , short of a constitutional amendment , that is n't easily repealed by implication the next time some rider amendment gets through .
    In any judicial action brought pursuant to Section 5 ( g ) of this Act , the standard of review shall be de novo .
  And now I 'm convinced DownsizeDC are idiots .
First , de novo is an appellate standard of review and has nothing to do with the original jurisdiction 5 ( g ) grants .
Second , if they mean that they want the whole Congress 1/Congress 2 line of precedent to be ignored , that 's fine , but the weight of the world 's political philosophy will have them right back where they started : a later law trumps an earlier one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, but there's no way.
There's plenty of law indicating that a Congress and President that enact something contrary to earlier action are entirely aware of the conflict and specifically chose to do away with the earlier, conflicting portions.
A constitutional amendment might work, sure, but that's only because you're escaping all the decisions that would make the OSTA meaningless.
  The presumption is that the lawmakers know and intend what they're doing.
I can't imagine how you do anything, short of a constitutional amendment, that isn't easily repealed by implication the next time some rider amendment gets through.
  
  In any judicial action brought pursuant to Section 5(g) of this Act, the standard of review shall be de novo.
  And now I'm convinced DownsizeDC are idiots.
First, de novo is an appellate standard of review and has nothing to do with the original jurisdiction 5(g) grants.
Second, if they mean that they want the whole Congress 1/Congress 2 line of precedent to be ignored, that's fine, but the weight of the world's political philosophy will have them right back where they started: a later law trumps an earlier one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348103</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1245169920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we should have a compositional structure to the bills, where they can be broken down into sub-proposals.  Each would have a summary, and could be revised independent of the other proposals, but the whole package would still be voted on as a single unit.
<br> <br>A big question I have regarding our legal process is why are we not able to change it?  I see this as a huge disadvantage.  Considering the massive amounts of data that have to be processed by the legislature, it seems very counter productive that they are not able to make full use of the information technology which is available today.  Part of the reason that our government is not transparent is that it would be a huge time sink just to understand the documents that they <i>have</i> made available.  I can barely follow the language of our bills, and I doubt I'm the only one.  I think we would benefit a lot from a more organized structure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should have a compositional structure to the bills , where they can be broken down into sub-proposals .
Each would have a summary , and could be revised independent of the other proposals , but the whole package would still be voted on as a single unit .
A big question I have regarding our legal process is why are we not able to change it ?
I see this as a huge disadvantage .
Considering the massive amounts of data that have to be processed by the legislature , it seems very counter productive that they are not able to make full use of the information technology which is available today .
Part of the reason that our government is not transparent is that it would be a huge time sink just to understand the documents that they have made available .
I can barely follow the language of our bills , and I doubt I 'm the only one .
I think we would benefit a lot from a more organized structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should have a compositional structure to the bills, where they can be broken down into sub-proposals.
Each would have a summary, and could be revised independent of the other proposals, but the whole package would still be voted on as a single unit.
A big question I have regarding our legal process is why are we not able to change it?
I see this as a huge disadvantage.
Considering the massive amounts of data that have to be processed by the legislature, it seems very counter productive that they are not able to make full use of the information technology which is available today.
Part of the reason that our government is not transparent is that it would be a huge time sink just to understand the documents that they have made available.
I can barely follow the language of our bills, and I doubt I'm the only one.
I think we would benefit a lot from a more organized structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350409</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1245177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>true but signing it and knowing you will ignore it is worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>true but signing it and knowing you will ignore it is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>true but signing it and knowing you will ignore it is worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344539</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1245089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, CO2 emissions perhaps , but take a look at coal production :</p><p><a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene\_coa\_pro-energy-coal-production" title="nationmaster.com">http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene\_coa\_pro-energy-coal-production</a> [nationmaster.com]</p><p>China      44.5\%<br>United States      10.7\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , CO2 emissions perhaps , but take a look at coal production : http : //www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene \ _coa \ _pro-energy-coal-production [ nationmaster.com ] China 44.5 \ % United States 10.7 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, CO2 emissions perhaps , but take a look at coal production :http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene\_coa\_pro-energy-coal-production [nationmaster.com]China      44.5\%United States      10.7\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343537</id>
	<title>tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>global warming...the only people that could help are geeks, but they are too preoccupied crying in their parents basements for some manga stanky they can never get on. Well here's a tip, geeks...anime is a fucking TOON, it don't stank, cuz it ain't real. Licking that musty moldy paneling in your parents' basement where the water damage is the closest you'll get!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>global warming...the only people that could help are geeks , but they are too preoccupied crying in their parents basements for some manga stanky they can never get on .
Well here 's a tip , geeks...anime is a fucking TOON , it do n't stank , cuz it ai n't real .
Licking that musty moldy paneling in your parents ' basement where the water damage is the closest you 'll get !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>global warming...the only people that could help are geeks, but they are too preoccupied crying in their parents basements for some manga stanky they can never get on.
Well here's a tip, geeks...anime is a fucking TOON, it don't stank, cuz it ain't real.
Licking that musty moldy paneling in your parents' basement where the water damage is the closest you'll get!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345413</id>
	<title>This is a Monsanto rule.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245144420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it was totally obvious that this happened. Monsanto hat huge revolving doors with the government.<br>Seriously. Microsoft, the oil industry, the pharma industry, the media industry... in terms of the chance to fuck us all up, they are all complete jokes, compared to that company.</p><p>There was a very well-made reportage on the French-German TV channel arte, looking behind it in a serious manner:<br>English: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c\_OJcPKEYDE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c\_OJcPKEYDE</a> [youtube.com]<br>German: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7781121501979693623" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7781121501979693623</a> [google.com]<br>French: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8723985684378254371" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8723985684378254371</a> [google.com]<br>Also available via BitTorrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it was totally obvious that this happened .
Monsanto hat huge revolving doors with the government.Seriously .
Microsoft , the oil industry , the pharma industry , the media industry... in terms of the chance to fuck us all up , they are all complete jokes , compared to that company.There was a very well-made reportage on the French-German TV channel arte , looking behind it in a serious manner : English : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = c \ _OJcPKEYDE [ youtube.com ] German : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -7781121501979693623 [ google.com ] French : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -8723985684378254371 [ google.com ] Also available via BitTorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it was totally obvious that this happened.
Monsanto hat huge revolving doors with the government.Seriously.
Microsoft, the oil industry, the pharma industry, the media industry... in terms of the chance to fuck us all up, they are all complete jokes, compared to that company.There was a very well-made reportage on the French-German TV channel arte, looking behind it in a serious manner:English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c\_OJcPKEYDE [youtube.com]German: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7781121501979693623 [google.com]French: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8723985684378254371 [google.com]Also available via BitTorrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1245082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.</p><p>The American Congress looks out for the political class (i.e. themselves) and for whoever lines their pockets.  This is very hard to change.</p><p>Congress's preferred method for doing so is to attach unrelated unpopular measures to popular multi-hundred page bills.  I don't believe that this clause is such a case, but it happens often enough and there are probably other unsavory tidbits hidden within this bill.</p><p>The only way Congress will stop such a practice is if we force them to.  To that end, DownsizeDC has drawn up the <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/page/osta\_legislation" title="downsizedc.org">One Subject at a Time Act</a> [downsizedc.org].  This bill would force Congress to bring every measure to a vote instead of burying them inside some behemoth legislation named "Rekindle The American Dream Act of 2009."</p><p>Public pressure works: see for example the 224 co-sponsors (over half the House) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which you may not have even heard of yet.  But the Campaign for Liberty organized a call-in campaign that has been running for a month, maybe a little longer.  C4L has around 100,000 members, easily less than a thousandth of the population, and they've already got half the house behind their bill.  The phone call is the most effective means of public pressure.  OSTA will law by this time next year or sooner if you call your congressmen and get four friends to do the same.</p><p>OSTA is a bitter pill for Congress to swallow, yet you'll be hard pressed to find 10 average Americans against its principles.  If just a hundredth of those who say "it sounds like a good idea" were to actually call and ask their congressmen to support it, the congressmen would have no choice.</p><p>Seriously.  Call.  Slashdot 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.The American Congress looks out for the political class ( i.e .
themselves ) and for whoever lines their pockets .
This is very hard to change.Congress 's preferred method for doing so is to attach unrelated unpopular measures to popular multi-hundred page bills .
I do n't believe that this clause is such a case , but it happens often enough and there are probably other unsavory tidbits hidden within this bill.The only way Congress will stop such a practice is if we force them to .
To that end , DownsizeDC has drawn up the One Subject at a Time Act [ downsizedc.org ] .
This bill would force Congress to bring every measure to a vote instead of burying them inside some behemoth legislation named " Rekindle The American Dream Act of 2009 .
" Public pressure works : see for example the 224 co-sponsors ( over half the House ) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 , which you may not have even heard of yet .
But the Campaign for Liberty organized a call-in campaign that has been running for a month , maybe a little longer .
C4L has around 100,000 members , easily less than a thousandth of the population , and they 've already got half the house behind their bill .
The phone call is the most effective means of public pressure .
OSTA will law by this time next year or sooner if you call your congressmen and get four friends to do the same.OSTA is a bitter pill for Congress to swallow , yet you 'll be hard pressed to find 10 average Americans against its principles .
If just a hundredth of those who say " it sounds like a good idea " were to actually call and ask their congressmen to support it , the congressmen would have no choice.Seriously .
Call. Slashdot 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.The American Congress looks out for the political class (i.e.
themselves) and for whoever lines their pockets.
This is very hard to change.Congress's preferred method for doing so is to attach unrelated unpopular measures to popular multi-hundred page bills.
I don't believe that this clause is such a case, but it happens often enough and there are probably other unsavory tidbits hidden within this bill.The only way Congress will stop such a practice is if we force them to.
To that end, DownsizeDC has drawn up the One Subject at a Time Act [downsizedc.org].
This bill would force Congress to bring every measure to a vote instead of burying them inside some behemoth legislation named "Rekindle The American Dream Act of 2009.
"Public pressure works: see for example the 224 co-sponsors (over half the House) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which you may not have even heard of yet.
But the Campaign for Liberty organized a call-in campaign that has been running for a month, maybe a little longer.
C4L has around 100,000 members, easily less than a thousandth of the population, and they've already got half the house behind their bill.
The phone call is the most effective means of public pressure.
OSTA will law by this time next year or sooner if you call your congressmen and get four friends to do the same.OSTA is a bitter pill for Congress to swallow, yet you'll be hard pressed to find 10 average Americans against its principles.
If just a hundredth of those who say "it sounds like a good idea" were to actually call and ask their congressmen to support it, the congressmen would have no choice.Seriously.
Call.  Slashdot 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344935</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like Scientific American never heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org">Jevons paradox</a> [wikipedia.org] which states "technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource".</p><p>In short, technology cannot save us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like Scientific American never heard of Jevons paradox [ wikipedia.org ] which states " technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used , tends to increase ( rather than decrease ) the rate of consumption of that resource " .In short , technology can not save us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like Scientific American never heard of Jevons paradox [wikipedia.org] which states "technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource".In short, technology cannot save us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348369</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245171120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kyoto is not intended to solve global warming. It is meant to solve poverty. By putting pressure on developed nations, jobs will get exported to developing countries that have unused carbon credits or emissions allowances, thereby spreading the wealth. It is not broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kyoto is not intended to solve global warming .
It is meant to solve poverty .
By putting pressure on developed nations , jobs will get exported to developing countries that have unused carbon credits or emissions allowances , thereby spreading the wealth .
It is not broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kyoto is not intended to solve global warming.
It is meant to solve poverty.
By putting pressure on developed nations, jobs will get exported to developing countries that have unused carbon credits or emissions allowances, thereby spreading the wealth.
It is not broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.</i></p><p>That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals.  The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically.  Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree.  Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.</p><p>I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search " Kyoto Protocol " in wikipedia and see what you get , a Map with all countries green except for the US.That 's the " signed and ratified " map , not the map of countries which are going to make their goals .
The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004 , but increased it dramatically .
Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree .
Of the nations listed , only Denmark , Germany , and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions , and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.I would suggest that it 's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals.
The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically.
Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree.
Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1245083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with line-item veto, or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of "sneaking things into" a bill, is that the party in power (majority party) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they don't like, or ADD whatever they want to any bill, confident that they will be able to pass it.</p><p>Basically, you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majority. The current system makes sure that EVERY bill is a compromise on multiple issues. Yeah, that means that most bills have all kinds of ridiculous things attached that we could probably live without, but it some of those attachments are GOOD, but would never manage to get passed if they weren't part of some larger bill with wide support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with line-item veto , or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of " sneaking things into " a bill , is that the party in power ( majority party ) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they do n't like , or ADD whatever they want to any bill , confident that they will be able to pass it.Basically , you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majority .
The current system makes sure that EVERY bill is a compromise on multiple issues .
Yeah , that means that most bills have all kinds of ridiculous things attached that we could probably live without , but it some of those attachments are GOOD , but would never manage to get passed if they were n't part of some larger bill with wide support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with line-item veto, or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of "sneaking things into" a bill, is that the party in power (majority party) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they don't like, or ADD whatever they want to any bill, confident that they will be able to pass it.Basically, you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majority.
The current system makes sure that EVERY bill is a compromise on multiple issues.
Yeah, that means that most bills have all kinds of ridiculous things attached that we could probably live without, but it some of those attachments are GOOD, but would never manage to get passed if they weren't part of some larger bill with wide support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345215</id>
	<title>Right is right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I have an idea that can save the planet, why should I share it with the rest of the world just because they also want to save the planet? You're not looking at Mr Stupid here you know.</p><p>If you want to save the planet using my idea, you've got to cough up the readies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have an idea that can save the planet , why should I share it with the rest of the world just because they also want to save the planet ?
You 're not looking at Mr Stupid here you know.If you want to save the planet using my idea , you 've got to cough up the readies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have an idea that can save the planet, why should I share it with the rest of the world just because they also want to save the planet?
You're not looking at Mr Stupid here you know.If you want to save the planet using my idea, you've got to cough up the readies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1245079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>America seriously has attitude problems...</i></p><p>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto. Duh!</p><p>America is many things. Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America seriously has attitude problems...Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto .
Duh ! America is many things .
Being sadomasicistic is n't one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America seriously has attitude problems...Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto.
Duh!America is many things.
Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343875</id>
	<title>Green, not green</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congress is all in favor of green tech, just not the same green as the environmentalists mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress is all in favor of green tech , just not the same green as the environmentalists mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress is all in favor of green tech, just not the same green as the environmentalists mean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346445</id>
	<title>SHUT THE FUCK UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pompous fucktards!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You have not proven human causation AT ALL! You cannot even definitely prove your so called "Climate Change" but we know from geologic history change has been the norm for billions of years and since industrialized humans have only been at this for what 150 years or so, the evidence for natural climate change is so overwhelming, it makes you all look like the fucking tools you all are.</p><p>Get a real cause and how about starting with your own fucked libtard bias of which has diminished your science to where those useful idiots in the UN and legislatures across the world are now so called fucking experts! Idiots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pompous fucktards !
      You have not proven human causation AT ALL !
You can not even definitely prove your so called " Climate Change " but we know from geologic history change has been the norm for billions of years and since industrialized humans have only been at this for what 150 years or so , the evidence for natural climate change is so overwhelming , it makes you all look like the fucking tools you all are.Get a real cause and how about starting with your own fucked libtard bias of which has diminished your science to where those useful idiots in the UN and legislatures across the world are now so called fucking experts !
Idiots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pompous fucktards!
      You have not proven human causation AT ALL!
You cannot even definitely prove your so called "Climate Change" but we know from geologic history change has been the norm for billions of years and since industrialized humans have only been at this for what 150 years or so, the evidence for natural climate change is so overwhelming, it makes you all look like the fucking tools you all are.Get a real cause and how about starting with your own fucked libtard bias of which has diminished your science to where those useful idiots in the UN and legislatures across the world are now so called fucking experts!
Idiots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344269</id>
	<title>Re:A win for big Oil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm probably lost here, but I'm confused why it is bad.  I mean, I see Germany is one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto obligations.  And I believe they did that at least partially by<br>1. force power companies to buy solar power from anyone for a great price<br>2. German companies started seeing huge demand for solar, and could be sure it would continue to increase, so they increased investments and manufacturing<br>3. profit!<br>4. German semiconductor stock market gets a boost from foreign investments, and does well.<br>5. more profit<br>6. other countries buying german solar products and technology<br>7. even more profit!</p><p>Joking aside, it was business innovation that started investing only when they knew they could profit from it, which resulted in a net profit for the companies, and Germany met their goals.</p><p>So what's wrong with protecting the patent rights of companies that innovate, even if a lot of it will go to big oil companies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably lost here , but I 'm confused why it is bad .
I mean , I see Germany is one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto obligations .
And I believe they did that at least partially by1 .
force power companies to buy solar power from anyone for a great price2 .
German companies started seeing huge demand for solar , and could be sure it would continue to increase , so they increased investments and manufacturing3 .
profit ! 4. German semiconductor stock market gets a boost from foreign investments , and does well.5 .
more profit6 .
other countries buying german solar products and technology7 .
even more profit ! Joking aside , it was business innovation that started investing only when they knew they could profit from it , which resulted in a net profit for the companies , and Germany met their goals.So what 's wrong with protecting the patent rights of companies that innovate , even if a lot of it will go to big oil companies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably lost here, but I'm confused why it is bad.
I mean, I see Germany is one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto obligations.
And I believe they did that at least partially by1.
force power companies to buy solar power from anyone for a great price2.
German companies started seeing huge demand for solar, and could be sure it would continue to increase, so they increased investments and manufacturing3.
profit!4. German semiconductor stock market gets a boost from foreign investments, and does well.5.
more profit6.
other countries buying german solar products and technology7.
even more profit!Joking aside, it was business innovation that started investing only when they knew they could profit from it, which resulted in a net profit for the companies, and Germany met their goals.So what's wrong with protecting the patent rights of companies that innovate, even if a lot of it will go to big oil companies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345727</id>
	<title>Re:America is full of itself</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1245149640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto. Duh!</p><p>America is many things. Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.</p></div><p>
Yes, because we all know you're not being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane\_Katrina" title="wikipedia.org">punished</a> [wikipedia.org] by global warming, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Category\_5\_Atlantic\_hurricanes#Listed\_in\_chronological\_order" title="wikipedia.org">not a little bit</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p><p>
You're in the Titanic too, dude. Just travelling 1st class.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto .
Duh ! America is many things .
Being sadomasicistic is n't one of them .
Yes , because we all know you 're not being punished [ wikipedia.org ] by global warming , not a little bit [ wikipedia.org ] .
You 're in the Titanic too , dude .
Just travelling 1st class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto.
Duh!America is many things.
Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.
Yes, because we all know you're not being punished [wikipedia.org] by global warming, not a little bit [wikipedia.org].
You're in the Titanic too, dude.
Just travelling 1st class.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343805</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the US doesn't even bother with treaties for such things nowadays, does it?  We just call it an "agreement," and then we all act like it's a treaty without all that pesky two-thirds consent by the Senate.  Hell, one of my former senators from Virginia didn't even *know* that you need a Senate supermajority to ratify a treaty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the US does n't even bother with treaties for such things nowadays , does it ?
We just call it an " agreement , " and then we all act like it 's a treaty without all that pesky two-thirds consent by the Senate .
Hell , one of my former senators from Virginia did n't even * know * that you need a Senate supermajority to ratify a treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the US doesn't even bother with treaties for such things nowadays, does it?
We just call it an "agreement," and then we all act like it's a treaty without all that pesky two-thirds consent by the Senate.
Hell, one of my former senators from Virginia didn't even *know* that you need a Senate supermajority to ratify a treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671</id>
	<title>Whats wrong with that?</title>
	<author>spyder-implee</author>
	<datestamp>1245080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm generally against IP , but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it 's really not that bad is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350103</id>
	<title>Name Change ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."</p><p>
&nbsp; -- Benito Mussolini</p><p>The US should change its name to The Fascist States of America</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power .
"   -- Benito MussoliniThe US should change its name to The Fascist States of America</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
"
  -- Benito MussoliniThe US should change its name to The Fascist States of America</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, that is a messy one. It is easy to suggest(and very likely desireable) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through. However, since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases, you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening. Trying to draft a workable definition of "about something, and only about something" that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct, and doesn't rely on "good faith"(a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers) is virtually impossible.<br> <br>

In a case like this, it would be trivial to argue that, since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change, and since IP is arguably connected with technological development, IP protection is arguably related. If you are subtle enough, you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP, while ostensibly remaining "on topic".<br> <br>

It might be possible, and would certainly be desirable, to curb the worst abuses; but there is essentially no way to attack the (large) grey area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that is a messy one .
It is easy to suggest ( and very likely desireable ) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through .
However , since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases , you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening .
Trying to draft a workable definition of " about something , and only about something " that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct , and does n't rely on " good faith " ( a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers ) is virtually impossible .
In a case like this , it would be trivial to argue that , since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change , and since IP is arguably connected with technological development , IP protection is arguably related .
If you are subtle enough , you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP , while ostensibly remaining " on topic " .
It might be possible , and would certainly be desirable , to curb the worst abuses ; but there is essentially no way to attack the ( large ) grey area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that is a messy one.
It is easy to suggest(and very likely desireable) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through.
However, since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases, you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening.
Trying to draft a workable definition of "about something, and only about something" that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct, and doesn't rely on "good faith"(a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers) is virtually impossible.
In a case like this, it would be trivial to argue that, since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change, and since IP is arguably connected with technological development, IP protection is arguably related.
If you are subtle enough, you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP, while ostensibly remaining "on topic".
It might be possible, and would certainly be desirable, to curb the worst abuses; but there is essentially no way to attack the (large) grey area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344855</id>
	<title>Re:It's a token law.</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1245093480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8" title="usconstitution.net">United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8</a> [usconstitution.net] <p><div class="quote"><p>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>United States Constitution , Article 1 , Section 8 [ usconstitution.net ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 [usconstitution.net] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344085</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28347505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28357907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28351255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_2237201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345071
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350409
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28347505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343887
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343817
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28350267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28357907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343927
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344663
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28351255
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344447
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344579
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28345041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28348103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28352985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_2237201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28344855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28346767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_2237201.28343805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
