<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_2212247</id>
	<title>Air Force Planning New Drone Fleet For Pakistan</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245235140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mattnyc99 writes <i>"With tensions high on the border, a new commander in Afghanistan, and complaints of civilian deaths from robotic US strikes in Pakistan raising anti-American sentiment, the Air Force is <a href="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/new-air-force-drones-in-pakistan-061709">sketching out concepts for new robotic hitmen</a>, reports Esquire.com. Among the new drones (which are all very small) are the Suburb Warrior (loaded with four or five mini missiles for semi-urban environments), the Sniper targeting system ("that can lock on to multiple targets, allowing a single drone pilot to coordinate the attacks of a squadron of robots"), and a backup fleet of flying buggies that act as suicide-bomber snipers. From the article: 'Picking through the dozens of systems in this briefing, many of which will be flight-tested within five years, there's a clear set of goals: build smaller, even microscopic drones with smaller weapons that can hunt in swarms and engage targets in the close quarters of urban battlefields. And hunt as soon as possible.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mattnyc99 writes " With tensions high on the border , a new commander in Afghanistan , and complaints of civilian deaths from robotic US strikes in Pakistan raising anti-American sentiment , the Air Force is sketching out concepts for new robotic hitmen , reports Esquire.com .
Among the new drones ( which are all very small ) are the Suburb Warrior ( loaded with four or five mini missiles for semi-urban environments ) , the Sniper targeting system ( " that can lock on to multiple targets , allowing a single drone pilot to coordinate the attacks of a squadron of robots " ) , and a backup fleet of flying buggies that act as suicide-bomber snipers .
From the article : 'Picking through the dozens of systems in this briefing , many of which will be flight-tested within five years , there 's a clear set of goals : build smaller , even microscopic drones with smaller weapons that can hunt in swarms and engage targets in the close quarters of urban battlefields .
And hunt as soon as possible .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mattnyc99 writes "With tensions high on the border, a new commander in Afghanistan, and complaints of civilian deaths from robotic US strikes in Pakistan raising anti-American sentiment, the Air Force is sketching out concepts for new robotic hitmen, reports Esquire.com.
Among the new drones (which are all very small) are the Suburb Warrior (loaded with four or five mini missiles for semi-urban environments), the Sniper targeting system ("that can lock on to multiple targets, allowing a single drone pilot to coordinate the attacks of a squadron of robots"), and a backup fleet of flying buggies that act as suicide-bomber snipers.
From the article: 'Picking through the dozens of systems in this briefing, many of which will be flight-tested within five years, there's a clear set of goals: build smaller, even microscopic drones with smaller weapons that can hunt in swarms and engage targets in the close quarters of urban battlefields.
And hunt as soon as possible.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368333</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.</i></p><p>But everyone will have this technology, including the Timothy McVeigh clone down the street who thinks some strange collective entity he calls "the gubmint" should be attacked by force of arms.  He will therefore send these assassination machines out to kill government functionaries, as for some reason he thinks his imagined nemesis, "the gubmint", is somehow associated with the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.But everyone will have this technology , including the Timothy McVeigh clone down the street who thinks some strange collective entity he calls " the gubmint " should be attacked by force of arms .
He will therefore send these assassination machines out to kill government functionaries , as for some reason he thinks his imagined nemesis , " the gubmint " , is somehow associated with the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.But everyone will have this technology, including the Timothy McVeigh clone down the street who thinks some strange collective entity he calls "the gubmint" should be attacked by force of arms.
He will therefore send these assassination machines out to kill government functionaries, as for some reason he thinks his imagined nemesis, "the gubmint", is somehow associated with the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28372581</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1245333420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As another comment suggest, producing water is easy if you have power. Last week there was a "post-scarcity" way talked about on slashdot relying on cleverness:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Frank Herbert's Moisture Traps May Be a Reality "<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/09/2058241" title="slashdot.org">http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/09/2058241</a> [slashdot.org]<br>"In the seminal science fiction book 'Dune,' Frank Herbert envisioned the Fremen collecting water from the air via moisture traps and dew collectors. Science Daily reprints a press release from the Fraunhofer Institute in Stuttgart, where scientists working with colleagues from Logos Innovationen have developed a closed-loop and self-sustaining method, no external power required, for teasing the humidity out of desert air and into potable water."</p><p>Ask yourself, why are you saying there is a water problem when this article was here last week? Could it be true for almost everything else, too? Energy? Mining? Recycling? Medicine? Education? And so on? There is so much happening out there by so many people:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.blessedunrest.com/" title="blessedunrest.com">http://www.blessedunrest.com/</a> [blessedunrest.com]<br>"Blessed Unrest explores the diversity of the movement, its brilliant ideas, innovative strategies, and hidden history, which date back many centuries. A culmination of Hawken's many years of leadership in the environmental and social justice fields, it will inspire and delight any and all who despair of the world's fate, and its conclusions will surprise even those within the movement itself. Fundamentally, it is a description of humanity's collective genius, and the unstoppable movement to reimagine our relationship to the environment and one another."</p><p>The technology is not enough though. It only makes easier the task of social movements. There is enough to go around now, and there has always been as a globe for thousands of years. But it is easier to think about sharing abundance when there is more of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As another comment suggest , producing water is easy if you have power .
Last week there was a " post-scarcity " way talked about on slashdot relying on cleverness :     " Frank Herbert 's Moisture Traps May Be a Reality "     http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/09/2058241 [ slashdot.org ] " In the seminal science fiction book 'Dune, ' Frank Herbert envisioned the Fremen collecting water from the air via moisture traps and dew collectors .
Science Daily reprints a press release from the Fraunhofer Institute in Stuttgart , where scientists working with colleagues from Logos Innovationen have developed a closed-loop and self-sustaining method , no external power required , for teasing the humidity out of desert air and into potable water .
" Ask yourself , why are you saying there is a water problem when this article was here last week ?
Could it be true for almost everything else , too ?
Energy ? Mining ?
Recycling ? Medicine ?
Education ? And so on ?
There is so much happening out there by so many people :     http : //www.blessedunrest.com/ [ blessedunrest.com ] " Blessed Unrest explores the diversity of the movement , its brilliant ideas , innovative strategies , and hidden history , which date back many centuries .
A culmination of Hawken 's many years of leadership in the environmental and social justice fields , it will inspire and delight any and all who despair of the world 's fate , and its conclusions will surprise even those within the movement itself .
Fundamentally , it is a description of humanity 's collective genius , and the unstoppable movement to reimagine our relationship to the environment and one another .
" The technology is not enough though .
It only makes easier the task of social movements .
There is enough to go around now , and there has always been as a globe for thousands of years .
But it is easier to think about sharing abundance when there is more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another comment suggest, producing water is easy if you have power.
Last week there was a "post-scarcity" way talked about on slashdot relying on cleverness:
    "Frank Herbert's Moisture Traps May Be a Reality "
    http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/09/2058241 [slashdot.org]"In the seminal science fiction book 'Dune,' Frank Herbert envisioned the Fremen collecting water from the air via moisture traps and dew collectors.
Science Daily reprints a press release from the Fraunhofer Institute in Stuttgart, where scientists working with colleagues from Logos Innovationen have developed a closed-loop and self-sustaining method, no external power required, for teasing the humidity out of desert air and into potable water.
"Ask yourself, why are you saying there is a water problem when this article was here last week?
Could it be true for almost everything else, too?
Energy? Mining?
Recycling? Medicine?
Education? And so on?
There is so much happening out there by so many people:
    http://www.blessedunrest.com/ [blessedunrest.com]"Blessed Unrest explores the diversity of the movement, its brilliant ideas, innovative strategies, and hidden history, which date back many centuries.
A culmination of Hawken's many years of leadership in the environmental and social justice fields, it will inspire and delight any and all who despair of the world's fate, and its conclusions will surprise even those within the movement itself.
Fundamentally, it is a description of humanity's collective genius, and the unstoppable movement to reimagine our relationship to the environment and one another.
"The technology is not enough though.
It only makes easier the task of social movements.
There is enough to go around now, and there has always been as a globe for thousands of years.
But it is easier to think about sharing abundance when there is more of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373423</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>knutkracker</author>
	<datestamp>1245337320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.</p></div><p>Are you implying that for the 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day, scarcity is 'perceived'? Fix the economic system that increasingly concentrates resources in the hands of the few and that sort of thing might be possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.Are you implying that for the 1 billion people living on less than $ 1 a day , scarcity is 'perceived ' ?
Fix the economic system that increasingly concentrates resources in the hands of the few and that sort of thing might be possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.Are you implying that for the 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day, scarcity is 'perceived'?
Fix the economic system that increasingly concentrates resources in the hands of the few and that sort of thing might be possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370173</id>
	<title>L.A.?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That illustration is down-town Los Angeles. I think I see a building that I once contracted at. Scary! Couldn't they use a made-up city for that pic?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That illustration is down-town Los Angeles .
I think I see a building that I once contracted at .
Scary ! Could n't they use a made-up city for that pic ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That illustration is down-town Los Angeles.
I think I see a building that I once contracted at.
Scary! Couldn't they use a made-up city for that pic?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369113</id>
	<title>gutless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people that control these drones, and other remote 'killing machines' must feel like gutless cunts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people that control these drones , and other remote 'killing machines ' must feel like gutless cunts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people that control these drones, and other remote 'killing machines' must feel like gutless cunts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369445</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>So, the country with less killer robot production capacity will have a powerful incentive to design killer robots that can make themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So with no soldiers to kill , it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...So , the country with less killer robot production capacity will have a powerful incentive to design killer robots that can make themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...So, the country with less killer robot production capacity will have a powerful incentive to design killer robots that can make themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28375237</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>the\_olo</author>
	<datestamp>1245344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has described exactly this problem (swarm robotics in military) <a href="http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/vitrifaxrevs.html#onehumanminute" title="std.com">as far back as 1986</a> [std.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution." Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who. A country was able to e.g. form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.</p><p>Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem.</p><p>All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has described exactly this problem ( swarm robotics in military ) as far back as 1986 [ std.com ] : The really interesting essay of the three , and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem 's work , is the middle one , " The Upside-Down Evolution .
" Lem announces that , by unspecified means , he 's gotten hold of " a military history of the twenty-first century , " and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.It 's been some time since I read it , but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like , until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who .
A country was able to e.g .
form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem.All in all , a recommended read ( like many other works by Lem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has described exactly this problem (swarm robotics in military) as far back as 1986 [std.com]:The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution.
" Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who.
A country was able to e.g.
form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem.All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28374209</id>
	<title>!Robots</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1245340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Controlled by a human = !Robot.</p><p>AFAIK none of these are truly robots, they're remote controlled drones.  A land mine would be closer to a robot than something like predator.  AFAIK all of these systems that have weapons still require a 'man in the loop' to pull the trigger.  A robot would not, it would have to IFF on it's own and fire.</p><p>Battlebots weren't robots, they were remote controlled cars with weapons.  Mecha are not robots either, they're piloted vehicles.  The PACRATs from GI Joe were robots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Controlled by a human = ! Robot.AFAIK none of these are truly robots , they 're remote controlled drones .
A land mine would be closer to a robot than something like predator .
AFAIK all of these systems that have weapons still require a 'man in the loop ' to pull the trigger .
A robot would not , it would have to IFF on it 's own and fire.Battlebots were n't robots , they were remote controlled cars with weapons .
Mecha are not robots either , they 're piloted vehicles .
The PACRATs from GI Joe were robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Controlled by a human = !Robot.AFAIK none of these are truly robots, they're remote controlled drones.
A land mine would be closer to a robot than something like predator.
AFAIK all of these systems that have weapons still require a 'man in the loop' to pull the trigger.
A robot would not, it would have to IFF on it's own and fire.Battlebots weren't robots, they were remote controlled cars with weapons.
Mecha are not robots either, they're piloted vehicles.
The PACRATs from GI Joe were robots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368411</id>
	<title>Manned or Unmanned?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1245247440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7174569" title="npr.org">Inquiring minds</a> [npr.org] want to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inquiring minds [ npr.org ] want to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inquiring minds [npr.org] want to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367431</id>
	<title>Re:Esquire the Magazine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes I was a little off topic, but I was making a point about the reference without a second reference.  Otherwise I thought the article was rather good and informed.
<br> <br>
However, a second reference which were to collaborate the esquire.com article might have been in order since I'm not sure that esquire.com has anybody on staff that one could call informed in the field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I was a little off topic , but I was making a point about the reference without a second reference .
Otherwise I thought the article was rather good and informed .
However , a second reference which were to collaborate the esquire.com article might have been in order since I 'm not sure that esquire.com has anybody on staff that one could call informed in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I was a little off topic, but I was making a point about the reference without a second reference.
Otherwise I thought the article was rather good and informed.
However, a second reference which were to collaborate the esquire.com article might have been in order since I'm not sure that esquire.com has anybody on staff that one could call informed in the field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367773</id>
	<title>Re:loss of ressources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245242040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok maybe i did say it a bit wrong...i dont want to say that there is no development through this, i just think those things should be developed for civil uses and then for military uses (which will ahppen inevitably with pretty much every technology)</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok maybe i did say it a bit wrong...i dont want to say that there is no development through this , i just think those things should be developed for civil uses and then for military uses ( which will ahppen inevitably with pretty much every technology )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok maybe i did say it a bit wrong...i dont want to say that there is no development through this, i just think those things should be developed for civil uses and then for military uses (which will ahppen inevitably with pretty much every technology)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369575</id>
	<title>Ian M. Banks</title>
	<author>Hecatonchires</author>
	<datestamp>1245259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like someone's been reading some culture novels, and instead of taking away some of the philosophy about responsibility and human interaction, they thought 'Wow! Knife drones are cool!'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like someone 's been reading some culture novels , and instead of taking away some of the philosophy about responsibility and human interaction , they thought 'Wow !
Knife drones are cool !
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like someone's been reading some culture novels, and instead of taking away some of the philosophy about responsibility and human interaction, they thought 'Wow!
Knife drones are cool!
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369609</id>
	<title>another moronic method to appease Anti-Americanism</title>
	<author>JTMoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea here being<br>
"<i>if we could just make super-judicial executions cleaner... then this Assassination business will be nice and tidy.  No hurt feelings on both sides.  It's a real win-win!</i>"<br>
Interventionism hasn't worked for several decades now (and has backfired <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer\_Rouge#Fall\_of\_the\_Khmer\_Rouge" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">catastrophically</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad\_Mossadegh#Overthrow\_of\_Mosaddeq" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> several</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam\_Hussein#Iran.E2.80.93Iraq\_War" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">times</a> [wikipedia.org]).<br>
<br>
I don't understand how zapping people <i>suspected</i> of being "bad guys" is justified.<br>
The implicit idea in this story is <i>those people</i> (Pakistanis) are not Americans.  So the American goverment doesn't have to follow bothersome American laws and rights.  Those laws and rights only hamper real "justice".<br>
You might think " <i>American's will get it right, they won't zap people indiscriminantly</i>".<br>
But that's one reason Guantanamo is a big deal.  Some people wasting their life away in that concrete jail were put there based on hearsay.<br>
<br>
<br>
That song ought to be changed to <br>
"<i>And I'm proud to be an American,<br>  where at least I know I can watch the YouTube video of the swarm of missiles blowing some unlucky towelhead to bits in the middle of a sunny day in a city that's in a country deemed dangerous by the American military and I can feel safe knowing the American missile robot swarm is not hunting me<br>
And I won't forget the men who died,<br>  who gave their life for the American missile robot swarm so the American military didn't get bored and turn those robot swarms on me.</i>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea here being " if we could just make super-judicial executions cleaner... then this Assassination business will be nice and tidy .
No hurt feelings on both sides .
It 's a real win-win !
" Interventionism has n't worked for several decades now ( and has backfired catastrophically [ wikipedia.org ] several [ wikipedia.org ] times [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
I do n't understand how zapping people suspected of being " bad guys " is justified .
The implicit idea in this story is those people ( Pakistanis ) are not Americans .
So the American goverment does n't have to follow bothersome American laws and rights .
Those laws and rights only hamper real " justice " .
You might think " American 's will get it right , they wo n't zap people indiscriminantly " .
But that 's one reason Guantanamo is a big deal .
Some people wasting their life away in that concrete jail were put there based on hearsay .
That song ought to be changed to " And I 'm proud to be an American , where at least I know I can watch the YouTube video of the swarm of missiles blowing some unlucky towelhead to bits in the middle of a sunny day in a city that 's in a country deemed dangerous by the American military and I can feel safe knowing the American missile robot swarm is not hunting me And I wo n't forget the men who died , who gave their life for the American missile robot swarm so the American military did n't get bored and turn those robot swarms on me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea here being
"if we could just make super-judicial executions cleaner... then this Assassination business will be nice and tidy.
No hurt feelings on both sides.
It's a real win-win!
"
Interventionism hasn't worked for several decades now (and has backfired catastrophically [wikipedia.org]  several [wikipedia.org] times [wikipedia.org]).
I don't understand how zapping people suspected of being "bad guys" is justified.
The implicit idea in this story is those people (Pakistanis) are not Americans.
So the American goverment doesn't have to follow bothersome American laws and rights.
Those laws and rights only hamper real "justice".
You might think " American's will get it right, they won't zap people indiscriminantly".
But that's one reason Guantanamo is a big deal.
Some people wasting their life away in that concrete jail were put there based on hearsay.
That song ought to be changed to 
"And I'm proud to be an American,  where at least I know I can watch the YouTube video of the swarm of missiles blowing some unlucky towelhead to bits in the middle of a sunny day in a city that's in a country deemed dangerous by the American military and I can feel safe knowing the American missile robot swarm is not hunting me
And I won't forget the men who died,  who gave their life for the American missile robot swarm so the American military didn't get bored and turn those robot swarms on me.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863</id>
	<title>Killing massive amounts of people</title>
	<author>qbzzt</author>
	<datestamp>1245252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground</i></p><p>Did you read the article? The point of this technology is to kill <b>targeted</b> people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible. To quote the article:</p><p><i>Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point , once again , is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button , with no soldiers on the groundDid you read the article ?
The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage ( = dead innocents ) as possible .
To quote the article : Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout , one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets , without vaporizing the wedding reception next door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the groundDid you read the article?
The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible.
To quote the article:Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369189</id>
	<title>Souldn't this stuff make terrorism WORSE??</title>
	<author>Kyusaku Natsume</author>
	<datestamp>1245255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, this would make more compelling to attack soft targets and use terrorist tactics. Even using robots and modern tech, it is really hard to have full surveillance in a city; and without human inteligence, the risk of hitting the wrong target goes up. Certainly, instead of blowing up a wedding party, the operators of this weapons could kill only the groom, but you still will end with a bunch of angry people not willing to support your policies and diminish the legitimacy of the local government.</p><p>The problem in Pakistan is mostly a lack of legitimacy and the perception that the current government is only a puppet of USA. Those weapons will not change that, unless both governments really want to go to massive pollitical asesinations and rule only by fear.</p><p>Welcome to the new Middle Age!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , this would make more compelling to attack soft targets and use terrorist tactics .
Even using robots and modern tech , it is really hard to have full surveillance in a city ; and without human inteligence , the risk of hitting the wrong target goes up .
Certainly , instead of blowing up a wedding party , the operators of this weapons could kill only the groom , but you still will end with a bunch of angry people not willing to support your policies and diminish the legitimacy of the local government.The problem in Pakistan is mostly a lack of legitimacy and the perception that the current government is only a puppet of USA .
Those weapons will not change that , unless both governments really want to go to massive pollitical asesinations and rule only by fear.Welcome to the new Middle Age !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, this would make more compelling to attack soft targets and use terrorist tactics.
Even using robots and modern tech, it is really hard to have full surveillance in a city; and without human inteligence, the risk of hitting the wrong target goes up.
Certainly, instead of blowing up a wedding party, the operators of this weapons could kill only the groom, but you still will end with a bunch of angry people not willing to support your policies and diminish the legitimacy of the local government.The problem in Pakistan is mostly a lack of legitimacy and the perception that the current government is only a puppet of USA.
Those weapons will not change that, unless both governments really want to go to massive pollitical asesinations and rule only by fear.Welcome to the new Middle Age!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368657</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>MMInterface</author>
	<datestamp>1245250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the idea is to have robots kill people...</p></div><p>Impossible. Robots don't kill people. People kill people.... I've been waiting to say that for a long time so just forget I was here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea is to have robots kill people...Impossible .
Robots do n't kill people .
People kill people.... I 've been waiting to say that for a long time so just forget I was here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea is to have robots kill people...Impossible.
Robots don't kill people.
People kill people.... I've been waiting to say that for a long time so just forget I was here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368911</id>
	<title>BORING</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wake me when we're fighting cyberwars in cyberspace with cybersoldiers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me when we 're fighting cyberwars in cyberspace with cybersoldiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me when we're fighting cyberwars in cyberspace with cybersoldiers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</id>
	<title>This stuff...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1245244020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This stuff needs to be treated like nuclear weapons in terms of international condemnation. It is much harder to determine if a rogue country is trying to build such technology and is therefore MORE dangerous then nuclear weapons.</p><p>Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry. Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.</p><p>I don't care if it IS us that will have this technology. It needs to be stopped before we have ourselves another Cold-War, or worse, a real war.</p><p>I don't trust ANYONE with this tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This stuff needs to be treated like nuclear weapons in terms of international condemnation .
It is much harder to determine if a rogue country is trying to build such technology and is therefore MORE dangerous then nuclear weapons.Drone weaponry , especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about ( but seriously working on ) , are just as dangerous as biological weaponry .
Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.I do n't care if it IS us that will have this technology .
It needs to be stopped before we have ourselves another Cold-War , or worse , a real war.I do n't trust ANYONE with this tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This stuff needs to be treated like nuclear weapons in terms of international condemnation.
It is much harder to determine if a rogue country is trying to build such technology and is therefore MORE dangerous then nuclear weapons.Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry.
Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.I don't care if it IS us that will have this technology.
It needs to be stopped before we have ourselves another Cold-War, or worse, a real war.I don't trust ANYONE with this tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28379993</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>us7892</author>
	<datestamp>1245317220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll give the North Korean or Iranian governments a couple drones any day - instead of a nuclear bomb.  Ahmadinejad&#226;Z cannot destroy Israel with a few drones.  He can with one bomb.  That guy is a nut bag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give the North Korean or Iranian governments a couple drones any day - instead of a nuclear bomb .
Ahmadinejad   Z can not destroy Israel with a few drones .
He can with one bomb .
That guy is a nut bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give the North Korean or Iranian governments a couple drones any day - instead of a nuclear bomb.
AhmadinejadâZ cannot destroy Israel with a few drones.
He can with one bomb.
That guy is a nut bag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369495</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p><i>I agree it's better. Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.<br>Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.</i></p><p><i><i>Except that war between major powers capable of fielding robot armies is the least likely kind of war that we'll be fighting.  In particular it's not the war that these drones are being built for.</i></i></p><p><i><i>In that context, it'll be our robots vs their fighters (and the civilians they hide amongst), with them largely unable to attack us on our home soil.  When they don't have to suppress photos of soldiers' caskets returning home, because there are no dead soldiers, the popularity of the war will only be higher.  And when they do finally manage to launch an attack, and Little Johnny is blown up in an act of terrorism, I doubt the response will be to pull back but rather to increase kill-bot production.</i></i></p><p><i><i>I mean, there is some merit here.  One easy to identify reason for the difference between European and US views on war is that none of our cities were carpet-bombed.  Certainly being directly affected by war as opposed to watching videos on CNN means you're less likely to start it.</i></i></p><p><i><i>Just... I don't think fighting with robot drones is going to have that affect.  Anyone that advanced would already have the ability to attack our cities even if we had actual soldiers in their territory and thus would probably do so.  The last purely soldier-on-soldier war we were involved in was WWI.  Okay if you don't count Gulf War I.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So with no soldiers to kill , it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...I agree it 's better .
Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.Except that war between major powers capable of fielding robot armies is the least likely kind of war that we 'll be fighting .
In particular it 's not the war that these drones are being built for.In that context , it 'll be our robots vs their fighters ( and the civilians they hide amongst ) , with them largely unable to attack us on our home soil .
When they do n't have to suppress photos of soldiers ' caskets returning home , because there are no dead soldiers , the popularity of the war will only be higher .
And when they do finally manage to launch an attack , and Little Johnny is blown up in an act of terrorism , I doubt the response will be to pull back but rather to increase kill-bot production.I mean , there is some merit here .
One easy to identify reason for the difference between European and US views on war is that none of our cities were carpet-bombed .
Certainly being directly affected by war as opposed to watching videos on CNN means you 're less likely to start it.Just... I do n't think fighting with robot drones is going to have that affect .
Anyone that advanced would already have the ability to attack our cities even if we had actual soldiers in their territory and thus would probably do so .
The last purely soldier-on-soldier war we were involved in was WWI .
Okay if you do n't count Gulf War I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...I agree it's better.
Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.Except that war between major powers capable of fielding robot armies is the least likely kind of war that we'll be fighting.
In particular it's not the war that these drones are being built for.In that context, it'll be our robots vs their fighters (and the civilians they hide amongst), with them largely unable to attack us on our home soil.
When they don't have to suppress photos of soldiers' caskets returning home, because there are no dead soldiers, the popularity of the war will only be higher.
And when they do finally manage to launch an attack, and Little Johnny is blown up in an act of terrorism, I doubt the response will be to pull back but rather to increase kill-bot production.I mean, there is some merit here.
One easy to identify reason for the difference between European and US views on war is that none of our cities were carpet-bombed.
Certainly being directly affected by war as opposed to watching videos on CNN means you're less likely to start it.Just... I don't think fighting with robot drones is going to have that affect.
Anyone that advanced would already have the ability to attack our cities even if we had actual soldiers in their territory and thus would probably do so.
The last purely soldier-on-soldier war we were involved in was WWI.
Okay if you don't count Gulf War I.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368587</id>
	<title>borders, sovereignty, nationalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i view this as the enemy of peace, not the maintainer of it</p><p>a military technological development which leads to the inability of nations and states to maintain their integrity and borders seems like a good development to me</p><p>the world needs to move into a post-nationalistic world. so bring on the military technology which would destroy national integrity and borders. these are artificial constructs which render decisions based on tribalism and ethnocentrism. destroy all nations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i view this as the enemy of peace , not the maintainer of ita military technological development which leads to the inability of nations and states to maintain their integrity and borders seems like a good development to methe world needs to move into a post-nationalistic world .
so bring on the military technology which would destroy national integrity and borders .
these are artificial constructs which render decisions based on tribalism and ethnocentrism .
destroy all nations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i view this as the enemy of peace, not the maintainer of ita military technological development which leads to the inability of nations and states to maintain their integrity and borders seems like a good development to methe world needs to move into a post-nationalistic world.
so bring on the military technology which would destroy national integrity and borders.
these are artificial constructs which render decisions based on tribalism and ethnocentrism.
destroy all nations</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367393</id>
	<title>loss of ressources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When i hear something like that i must always think about what cool stuff all those scientists could have made if they would have put there efforts into something usefull like Space travel or something...im sure we could have a freaking warp drive *g*</htmltext>
<tokenext>When i hear something like that i must always think about what cool stuff all those scientists could have made if they would have put there efforts into something usefull like Space travel or something...im sure we could have a freaking warp drive * g *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i hear something like that i must always think about what cool stuff all those scientists could have made if they would have put there efforts into something usefull like Space travel or something...im sure we could have a freaking warp drive *g*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368727</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;So if soldiers can be replaces by robots I'm all for it</p><p>Except the robots are not killing robots at the moment. They are killing people. So you should say instead :</p><p>So if soldiers can be replaced by robots on both sides that only kill other robots then I am all for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So if soldiers can be replaces by robots I 'm all for itExcept the robots are not killing robots at the moment .
They are killing people .
So you should say instead : So if soldiers can be replaced by robots on both sides that only kill other robots then I am all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;So if soldiers can be replaces by robots I'm all for itExcept the robots are not killing robots at the moment.
They are killing people.
So you should say instead :So if soldiers can be replaced by robots on both sides that only kill other robots then I am all for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</id>
	<title>I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>War is just a silly game of 'who runs out of soldiers first' played between two governments. If soldiers can be replaced by robots I'm all for it</htmltext>
<tokenext>War is just a silly game of 'who runs out of soldiers first ' played between two governments .
If soldiers can be replaced by robots I 'm all for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War is just a silly game of 'who runs out of soldiers first' played between two governments.
If soldiers can be replaced by robots I'm all for it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1245240360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the idea is to have robots kill people...  This is basically nuclear warfare without the fallout.  Nukes have a couple of problems.  They cause fallout, massive civilian deaths, mutations to future births, etc.  They are great, however, because they can be used to kill &amp; deal enormous amounts of damage from afar, with no soldiers on the ground.<br> <br>Likewise with these drones and robots and what have you.  The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground.  Sure, it's not as bad as nukes, but to me it seems like a technology that is as game changing and disruptive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea is to have robots kill people... This is basically nuclear warfare without the fallout .
Nukes have a couple of problems .
They cause fallout , massive civilian deaths , mutations to future births , etc .
They are great , however , because they can be used to kill &amp; deal enormous amounts of damage from afar , with no soldiers on the ground .
Likewise with these drones and robots and what have you .
The point , once again , is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button , with no soldiers on the ground .
Sure , it 's not as bad as nukes , but to me it seems like a technology that is as game changing and disruptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea is to have robots kill people...  This is basically nuclear warfare without the fallout.
Nukes have a couple of problems.
They cause fallout, massive civilian deaths, mutations to future births, etc.
They are great, however, because they can be used to kill &amp; deal enormous amounts of damage from afar, with no soldiers on the ground.
Likewise with these drones and robots and what have you.
The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground.
Sure, it's not as bad as nukes, but to me it seems like a technology that is as game changing and disruptive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>giorgist</author>
	<datestamp>1245239700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><br>I agree it's better. Until now  we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.<br>Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So with no soldiers to kill , it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...I agree it 's better .
Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...I agree it's better.
Until now  we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368389</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>&gt; Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry.</i> </p><p>Actually microscopic drones and biological weaponry are the same thing under different names.  A biological system is really just a very small mechanical system.  The only difference as that at the moment the drone has more atoms in it.  As time goes on, biological tools will become smarter and more complex, while drones will become smaller.  Eventually both will contain the same number of atoms, operate on the same scale and be indistinguishable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Drone weaponry , especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about ( but seriously working on ) , are just as dangerous as biological weaponry .
Actually microscopic drones and biological weaponry are the same thing under different names .
A biological system is really just a very small mechanical system .
The only difference as that at the moment the drone has more atoms in it .
As time goes on , biological tools will become smarter and more complex , while drones will become smaller .
Eventually both will contain the same number of atoms , operate on the same scale and be indistinguishable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> &gt; Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry.
Actually microscopic drones and biological weaponry are the same thing under different names.
A biological system is really just a very small mechanical system.
The only difference as that at the moment the drone has more atoms in it.
As time goes on, biological tools will become smarter and more complex, while drones will become smaller.
Eventually both will contain the same number of atoms, operate on the same scale and be indistinguishable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371355</id>
	<title>US provides propaganda for enemies</title>
	<author>alexibu</author>
	<datestamp>1245321180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US is very much like the bad guys in lots of hollywood movies.<br>
<br>
e.g. Terminator, Star wars, Independence day<br>
<br>
All feature large superior force with evil weapons attacked by human freedom fighters (also known as terrorists lately).<br>
These movies can all be used to incite freedom fighters to fight the evil impersonal overlords that attack without putting their own lives in jeopardy.<br>
There are going to be some confused kids when they see which side is flying the obligatory US flags in some of these movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>US is very much like the bad guys in lots of hollywood movies .
e.g. Terminator , Star wars , Independence day All feature large superior force with evil weapons attacked by human freedom fighters ( also known as terrorists lately ) .
These movies can all be used to incite freedom fighters to fight the evil impersonal overlords that attack without putting their own lives in jeopardy .
There are going to be some confused kids when they see which side is flying the obligatory US flags in some of these movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US is very much like the bad guys in lots of hollywood movies.
e.g. Terminator, Star wars, Independence day

All feature large superior force with evil weapons attacked by human freedom fighters (also known as terrorists lately).
These movies can all be used to incite freedom fighters to fight the evil impersonal overlords that attack without putting their own lives in jeopardy.
There are going to be some confused kids when they see which side is flying the obligatory US flags in some of these movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370733</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>CarbonShell</author>
	<datestamp>1245358740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 'rouge nation'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. do you really believe the crap the government is selling you?<br>Take a short look around the world and see who are the countries that have the most advanced tech and is on a conflict somewhere or threatening others with war, regime change or nuclear attacks all the time.<br>You will see these are not the 'rouge nations'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 'rouge nation ' .. do you really believe the crap the government is selling you ? Take a short look around the world and see who are the countries that have the most advanced tech and is on a conflict somewhere or threatening others with war , regime change or nuclear attacks all the time.You will see these are not the 'rouge nations' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 'rouge nation' .. do you really believe the crap the government is selling you?Take a short look around the world and see who are the countries that have the most advanced tech and is on a conflict somewhere or threatening others with war, regime change or nuclear attacks all the time.You will see these are not the 'rouge nations'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28377777</id>
	<title>Re:loss of ressources</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1245354120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life, or?</i></p><p>They'll be used by your local cops in 3... 2... 1....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life , or ? They 'll be used by your local cops in 3... 2... 1... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life, or?They'll be used by your local cops in 3... 2... 1....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369659</id>
	<title>Death to Dust Bunnies!</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1245259980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After I RTFA, I started to think of other uses of drones; fighting fires, spraying crops, search and reconnaissance of folks that got lost, and cargo transporting.  If the military makes a working robot solder, I can see a lot theft happening.  House Wives, and College students in dormitories would be the primary suspects.  I can see the Joint Chiefs of Staff's indignity of watching their armies of vandalized T1000's mopping a floors, baking cookies, cleaning bathrooms, tending gardens, and the dreaded vacuuming, (my personal Nemesis).</htmltext>
<tokenext>After I RTFA , I started to think of other uses of drones ; fighting fires , spraying crops , search and reconnaissance of folks that got lost , and cargo transporting .
If the military makes a working robot solder , I can see a lot theft happening .
House Wives , and College students in dormitories would be the primary suspects .
I can see the Joint Chiefs of Staff 's indignity of watching their armies of vandalized T1000 's mopping a floors , baking cookies , cleaning bathrooms , tending gardens , and the dreaded vacuuming , ( my personal Nemesis ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After I RTFA, I started to think of other uses of drones; fighting fires, spraying crops, search and reconnaissance of folks that got lost, and cargo transporting.
If the military makes a working robot solder, I can see a lot theft happening.
House Wives, and College students in dormitories would be the primary suspects.
I can see the Joint Chiefs of Staff's indignity of watching their armies of vandalized T1000's mopping a floors, baking cookies, cleaning bathrooms, tending gardens, and the dreaded vacuuming, (my personal Nemesis).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368595</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you saw the numbers of mexicans pouring in to the US every day, you'd already know that borders mean nothing now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you saw the numbers of mexicans pouring in to the US every day , you 'd already know that borders mean nothing now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you saw the numbers of mexicans pouring in to the US every day, you'd already know that borders mean nothing now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370625</id>
	<title>Diplomatic fallout with India</title>
	<author>sandGorgons</author>
	<datestamp>1245357540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem here is the way this intelligence framework is going to work vis-a-vis the Pak Military and ISI (intelligence services). It will almost be given, that there will be some sort of operational authority given to Pakistan - what is, however, unclear is the way it can be (mis)used to spy on Indian troop movements on the LOAC (Line of Actual Control - border between India and Pak).

Given the terrorist attacks of 26-11, on Mumbai, and the diplomatic as well as military sabre -rattling taking place, it will be very interesting to see how the US handles these operations on Pak soil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is the way this intelligence framework is going to work vis-a-vis the Pak Military and ISI ( intelligence services ) .
It will almost be given , that there will be some sort of operational authority given to Pakistan - what is , however , unclear is the way it can be ( mis ) used to spy on Indian troop movements on the LOAC ( Line of Actual Control - border between India and Pak ) .
Given the terrorist attacks of 26-11 , on Mumbai , and the diplomatic as well as military sabre -rattling taking place , it will be very interesting to see how the US handles these operations on Pak soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is the way this intelligence framework is going to work vis-a-vis the Pak Military and ISI (intelligence services).
It will almost be given, that there will be some sort of operational authority given to Pakistan - what is, however, unclear is the way it can be (mis)used to spy on Indian troop movements on the LOAC (Line of Actual Control - border between India and Pak).
Given the terrorist attacks of 26-11, on Mumbai, and the diplomatic as well as military sabre -rattling taking place, it will be very interesting to see how the US handles these operations on Pak soil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371485</id>
	<title>Re:Killing massive amounts of people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245322800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good. Do you want to be killed by a targeted strike? For example, once one of the 'terrrist' states develops similar technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good .
Do you want to be killed by a targeted strike ?
For example , once one of the 'terrrist ' states develops similar technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good.
Do you want to be killed by a targeted strike?
For example, once one of the 'terrrist' states develops similar technology?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373873</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>ceejayoz</author>
	<datestamp>1245339360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nuclear power<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.</p></div><p>Yeah, because if anything screams 'post-scarcity', it's a technology that relies on digging up limited amounts of minerals and using them up...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power ... could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.Yeah , because if anything screams 'post-scarcity ' , it 's a technology that relies on digging up limited amounts of minerals and using them up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power ... could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.Yeah, because if anything screams 'post-scarcity', it's a technology that relies on digging up limited amounts of minerals and using them up...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367359</id>
	<title>FIST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this red?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this red ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this red?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368329</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>spyder-implee</author>
	<datestamp>1245246540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where will the accountability be? At the moment these things are flown by pilots, but over time they will no doubt become far more automated probably just requiring a brief <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMEAC" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">smeac</a> [wikipedia.org] and be able to work out the rest itself. Who gets the blame when a swarm of these things accidentally targets a bunch of kids on a playground because it confused it for a terrorist training camp? - OK perhaps an over-simplification but it doesn't happen until it happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where will the accountability be ?
At the moment these things are flown by pilots , but over time they will no doubt become far more automated probably just requiring a brief smeac [ wikipedia.org ] and be able to work out the rest itself .
Who gets the blame when a swarm of these things accidentally targets a bunch of kids on a playground because it confused it for a terrorist training camp ?
- OK perhaps an over-simplification but it does n't happen until it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where will the accountability be?
At the moment these things are flown by pilots, but over time they will no doubt become far more automated probably just requiring a brief smeac [wikipedia.org] and be able to work out the rest itself.
Who gets the blame when a swarm of these things accidentally targets a bunch of kids on a playground because it confused it for a terrorist training camp?
- OK perhaps an over-simplification but it doesn't happen until it happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368487</id>
	<title>Well allow me to say that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>as a Pakistani, I, for one, welcome our new drone overlords!
<p>
Bet ya'all didn't see this one coming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a Pakistani , I , for one , welcome our new drone overlords !
Bet ya'all did n't see this one coming : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a Pakistani, I, for one, welcome our new drone overlords!
Bet ya'all didn't see this one coming :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370169</id>
	<title>purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are ignoring that its planned for places like Pakistan</p><p>mostly mountainous region where foot patrols are not practical, and robot surveys are more cost effective, in the end they are just doing what is cheaper</p><p>I dont see how a robot armed with a bomb is any different than a satellite guided missle from a cruiser.  The satellite could be considered a type of robot, it sends a missle to blow up instead of itself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are ignoring that its planned for places like Pakistanmostly mountainous region where foot patrols are not practical , and robot surveys are more cost effective , in the end they are just doing what is cheaperI dont see how a robot armed with a bomb is any different than a satellite guided missle from a cruiser .
The satellite could be considered a type of robot , it sends a missle to blow up instead of itself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are ignoring that its planned for places like Pakistanmostly mountainous region where foot patrols are not practical, and robot surveys are more cost effective, in the end they are just doing what is cheaperI dont see how a robot armed with a bomb is any different than a satellite guided missle from a cruiser.
The satellite could be considered a type of robot, it sends a missle to blow up instead of itself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903</id>
	<title>The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1245243060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.</p><p>Nuclear power, biotech, AI, robotics, nanotech, the internet, and social bureaucracy -- each of these technologies could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.</p><p>Albert Einstein said: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."</p><p>The same is true for robotics, biotech, and the rest. Even smart networked watches.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.Nuclear power , biotech , AI , robotics , nanotech , the internet , and social bureaucracy -- each of these technologies could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.Albert Einstein said : " The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind .
If only I had known , I should have become a watchmaker .
" The same is true for robotics , biotech , and the rest .
Even smart networked watches .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.Nuclear power, biotech, AI, robotics, nanotech, the internet, and social bureaucracy -- each of these technologies could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.Albert Einstein said: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.
If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
"The same is true for robotics, biotech, and the rest.
Even smart networked watches.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370459</id>
	<title>Re:Killing massive amounts of people</title>
	<author>CarbonShell</author>
	<datestamp>1245356160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please.<br>I thought we already had 'smart bombs'? *buzz*<br>The old drones do pinpoint strikes.. *buzz*</p><p>This is just getting more and more ridiculous.</p><p>The part of the article everyone is overlooking is where the strikes keep hitting the *wrong* friggn people!</p><p>How often is a 'surgical strike against a terrorist stronghold' then actually turns out to be a school or a house or a wedding.</p><p>Fact is, if you do not know who you are shooting at, you are committing a war crime.<br>Oh wait, that only counts for the other side. *facepalm*</p><p>Often it is enough for the target to be *presumed* to be at a location for the bombs to be dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please.I thought we already had 'smart bombs ' ?
* buzz * The old drones do pinpoint strikes.. * buzz * This is just getting more and more ridiculous.The part of the article everyone is overlooking is where the strikes keep hitting the * wrong * friggn people ! How often is a 'surgical strike against a terrorist stronghold ' then actually turns out to be a school or a house or a wedding.Fact is , if you do not know who you are shooting at , you are committing a war crime.Oh wait , that only counts for the other side .
* facepalm * Often it is enough for the target to be * presumed * to be at a location for the bombs to be dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please.I thought we already had 'smart bombs'?
*buzz*The old drones do pinpoint strikes.. *buzz*This is just getting more and more ridiculous.The part of the article everyone is overlooking is where the strikes keep hitting the *wrong* friggn people!How often is a 'surgical strike against a terrorist stronghold' then actually turns out to be a school or a house or a wedding.Fact is, if you do not know who you are shooting at, you are committing a war crime.Oh wait, that only counts for the other side.
*facepalm*Often it is enough for the target to be *presumed* to be at a location for the bombs to be dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367367</id>
	<title>This can only be a prelude</title>
	<author>MistrX</author>
	<datestamp>1245238980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skynet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skynet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skynet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28375729</id>
	<title>can't shake the feeling</title>
	<author>amohat</author>
	<datestamp>1245346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, I know!</p><p>Just imagine all the benefits! Technology is good!</p><p>But I can't shake the feeling that this is just like eugenics and human cloning: Amazing and powerful technology that is in the wrong hands being developed for the wrong reasons and there's nothing we can do to stop them from destroying us all.</p><p>But it's super cool, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I know ! Just imagine all the benefits !
Technology is good ! But I ca n't shake the feeling that this is just like eugenics and human cloning : Amazing and powerful technology that is in the wrong hands being developed for the wrong reasons and there 's nothing we can do to stop them from destroying us all.But it 's super cool , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I know!Just imagine all the benefits!
Technology is good!But I can't shake the feeling that this is just like eugenics and human cloning: Amazing and powerful technology that is in the wrong hands being developed for the wrong reasons and there's nothing we can do to stop them from destroying us all.But it's super cool, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371595</id>
	<title>Plus ca change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245324360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To fight the Nazis, we allied with the Soviets. To fight the Soviets, we funded the Islamic fundamentalists. To fight the Islamic fundamentalists, we created a robot army. To fight the robots,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To fight the Nazis , we allied with the Soviets .
To fight the Soviets , we funded the Islamic fundamentalists .
To fight the Islamic fundamentalists , we created a robot army .
To fight the robots , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To fight the Nazis, we allied with the Soviets.
To fight the Soviets, we funded the Islamic fundamentalists.
To fight the Islamic fundamentalists, we created a robot army.
To fight the robots, ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370963</id>
	<title>watch the language</title>
	<author>10am-bedtime</author>
	<datestamp>1245317460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anthropomorphization is for human consumption:</p><ul>
<li>The word "hitman" is tinged with glamourous danger (a la James Bond).</li>
<li>The word "suicide" implies a life to be taken away by oneself.</li>
</ul><p>It sickens me (but sadly, only slightly) the ease with which
the handlers can (and <b>will</b>) bond with these machines, in the process
externalizing the death and destruction that they bring upon other humans.</p><p>What?!  Is 10-bedtime some kind of anti-robot racist?</p><p>No, but some local maxima are less local and less maximal than I'd like to
see.  As human society matures, its potential for acting, you know,
<b>humane</b> seems ever further away.  The age of remote-controlled
assisination robots are a local maxima in that such killings could actually be
considered humane -- the handlers have almost no risk of personal injury.</p><p>[end rambling despair...]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anthropomorphization is for human consumption : The word " hitman " is tinged with glamourous danger ( a la James Bond ) .
The word " suicide " implies a life to be taken away by oneself .
It sickens me ( but sadly , only slightly ) the ease with which the handlers can ( and will ) bond with these machines , in the process externalizing the death and destruction that they bring upon other humans.What ? !
Is 10-bedtime some kind of anti-robot racist ? No , but some local maxima are less local and less maximal than I 'd like to see .
As human society matures , its potential for acting , you know , humane seems ever further away .
The age of remote-controlled assisination robots are a local maxima in that such killings could actually be considered humane -- the handlers have almost no risk of personal injury .
[ end rambling despair... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anthropomorphization is for human consumption:
The word "hitman" is tinged with glamourous danger (a la James Bond).
The word "suicide" implies a life to be taken away by oneself.
It sickens me (but sadly, only slightly) the ease with which
the handlers can (and will) bond with these machines, in the process
externalizing the death and destruction that they bring upon other humans.What?!
Is 10-bedtime some kind of anti-robot racist?No, but some local maxima are less local and less maximal than I'd like to
see.
As human society matures, its potential for acting, you know,
humane seems ever further away.
The age of remote-controlled
assisination robots are a local maxima in that such killings could actually be
considered humane -- the handlers have almost no risk of personal injury.
[end rambling despair...]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367973</id>
	<title>Talk about Warmongering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245243600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just occurred to me that this is just another weapon like gun, it will get distributed all over the world and we would have more of current violent condition all across the world.<br><br>It doesn't matter what guns are sent and whether they are manned or not, as long as there are Warmongering leaders across the world pretending to protect these kind of developments are more to come.<br><br>Just because military technology gives birth to greater breakthroughs it doesn't mean we can step over the damage it causes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occurred to me that this is just another weapon like gun , it will get distributed all over the world and we would have more of current violent condition all across the world.It does n't matter what guns are sent and whether they are manned or not , as long as there are Warmongering leaders across the world pretending to protect these kind of developments are more to come.Just because military technology gives birth to greater breakthroughs it does n't mean we can step over the damage it causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occurred to me that this is just another weapon like gun, it will get distributed all over the world and we would have more of current violent condition all across the world.It doesn't matter what guns are sent and whether they are manned or not, as long as there are Warmongering leaders across the world pretending to protect these kind of developments are more to come.Just because military technology gives birth to greater breakthroughs it doesn't mean we can step over the damage it causes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28378589</id>
	<title>687 or 786 killed - what sort of prank is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245356100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why the figure 687 and the hint that the figure could be real or imaginary?<br>786 is holy number for many Muslims in Asia.<br>what sort of prank is this?</p><p>I have noted many articles with suspicious names for authors or names of authors that have a couple of things in common with the headline or a theme central to the story. I feel that it is too much of a coincidence that the name of the author in several such cases has conceptual proximity or is synonymous with something unique in the article - not John [Something] in John Doe vs the RIAA, but David Stone in an article about David Petraeus.<br>There's something fishy about 687. Messages are passed around the internet with codes and pre-decided text, but news outlets, headlines and fictitious statistics and author names?<br>Should we be allowed to use FOIA to get to meet the author online in a video chat so that newspapers do not get away with pranks? Especially on sensitive topics like this one? Is this to trap young Muslims into "online traps"?<br>Or are these just harmless pranks on a slow news day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why the figure 687 and the hint that the figure could be real or imaginary ? 786 is holy number for many Muslims in Asia.what sort of prank is this ? I have noted many articles with suspicious names for authors or names of authors that have a couple of things in common with the headline or a theme central to the story .
I feel that it is too much of a coincidence that the name of the author in several such cases has conceptual proximity or is synonymous with something unique in the article - not John [ Something ] in John Doe vs the RIAA , but David Stone in an article about David Petraeus.There 's something fishy about 687 .
Messages are passed around the internet with codes and pre-decided text , but news outlets , headlines and fictitious statistics and author names ? Should we be allowed to use FOIA to get to meet the author online in a video chat so that newspapers do not get away with pranks ?
Especially on sensitive topics like this one ?
Is this to trap young Muslims into " online traps " ? Or are these just harmless pranks on a slow news day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the figure 687 and the hint that the figure could be real or imaginary?786 is holy number for many Muslims in Asia.what sort of prank is this?I have noted many articles with suspicious names for authors or names of authors that have a couple of things in common with the headline or a theme central to the story.
I feel that it is too much of a coincidence that the name of the author in several such cases has conceptual proximity or is synonymous with something unique in the article - not John [Something] in John Doe vs the RIAA, but David Stone in an article about David Petraeus.There's something fishy about 687.
Messages are passed around the internet with codes and pre-decided text, but news outlets, headlines and fictitious statistics and author names?Should we be allowed to use FOIA to get to meet the author online in a video chat so that newspapers do not get away with pranks?
Especially on sensitive topics like this one?
Is this to trap young Muslims into "online traps"?Or are these just harmless pranks on a slow news day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337</id>
	<title>Esquire the Magazine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Esquire.com top 3 stories:
<br>
This one.
<br>
The greatest karaoke song of all time.
<br>
How the american man "really" spends his day.
<br> <br>
Not sure that I would put all my magical beans into that lone basket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Esquire.com top 3 stories : This one .
The greatest karaoke song of all time .
How the american man " really " spends his day .
Not sure that I would put all my magical beans into that lone basket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Esquire.com top 3 stories:

This one.
The greatest karaoke song of all time.
How the american man "really" spends his day.
Not sure that I would put all my magical beans into that lone basket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368601</id>
	<title>HAVE NO FEAR!</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1245249480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robot drones patrolling the neighborhoods will protect little Johny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robot drones patrolling the neighborhoods will protect little Johny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robot drones patrolling the neighborhoods will protect little Johny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369295</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think warring parties will be content to fight robot to robot? Who and what will the targets of these robots be if not the other robots?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think warring parties will be content to fight robot to robot ?
Who and what will the targets of these robots be if not the other robots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think warring parties will be content to fight robot to robot?
Who and what will the targets of these robots be if not the other robots?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28381681</id>
	<title>Re:This stuff...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1245323820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then his drones will fight the government drones, and the TV newsdrones will be recording it, and then the SWAT drones will turn up, and then the blogger drones, and before you know it some smart-alec kid's wearing an EVA-01 suit and that's when things get *really* out of hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then his drones will fight the government drones , and the TV newsdrones will be recording it , and then the SWAT drones will turn up , and then the blogger drones , and before you know it some smart-alec kid 's wearing an EVA-01 suit and that 's when things get * really * out of hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then his drones will fight the government drones, and the TV newsdrones will be recording it, and then the SWAT drones will turn up, and then the blogger drones, and before you know it some smart-alec kid's wearing an EVA-01 suit and that's when things get *really* out of hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565</id>
	<title>Re:loss of ressources</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1245240300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its also worth noting that war has driven technological advances much faster than any other single reason, so I wouldn't go as far to say science has been wasted on war.

One example...Emergency room trauma techniques and equipment were perfected on the battlefield. millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war.

some of the coolest gadgets we use today came from the research done in finding ways to kill eachother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its also worth noting that war has driven technological advances much faster than any other single reason , so I would n't go as far to say science has been wasted on war .
One example...Emergency room trauma techniques and equipment were perfected on the battlefield .
millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war .
some of the coolest gadgets we use today came from the research done in finding ways to kill eachother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its also worth noting that war has driven technological advances much faster than any other single reason, so I wouldn't go as far to say science has been wasted on war.
One example...Emergency room trauma techniques and equipment were perfected on the battlefield.
millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war.
some of the coolest gadgets we use today came from the research done in finding ways to kill eachother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368447</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1245247920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.</p></div><p> <i>Some</i> things may not be scarce with the advancement of technology, but I would say it would certainly take a pretty big leap in technology to make the land between Israel and Palistine "non-scarce" (for example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity .
Some things may not be scarce with the advancement of technology , but I would say it would certainly take a pretty big leap in technology to make the land between Israel and Palistine " non-scarce " ( for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.
Some things may not be scarce with the advancement of technology, but I would say it would certainly take a pretty big leap in technology to make the land between Israel and Palistine "non-scarce" (for example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367457</id>
	<title>Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But losing robots isn't going to make a government quit, like losing so many human soldiers can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But losing robots is n't going to make a government quit , like losing so many human soldiers can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But losing robots isn't going to make a government quit, like losing so many human soldiers can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371313</id>
	<title>"act as suicide-bomber snipers"</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1245320760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their suicide bombers = "Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war"
Our suicide bombers = "Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty"

Seriously, anyone who uses 'warrior' with its connotations of bravery in a context of destroying civilians by remote control makes Gen Melchett look like a model of sanity and morality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their suicide bombers = " Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war " Our suicide bombers = " Splendid fellows , brave heroes , risking life and limb for Blighty " Seriously , anyone who uses 'warrior ' with its connotations of bravery in a context of destroying civilians by remote control makes Gen Melchett look like a model of sanity and morality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their suicide bombers = "Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war"
Our suicide bombers = "Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty"

Seriously, anyone who uses 'warrior' with its connotations of bravery in a context of destroying civilians by remote control makes Gen Melchett look like a model of sanity and morality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369749</id>
	<title>A job for open source</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1245260760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Design a radio control airplane that can shoot these drones down.</p><p>If we don't do it, someone else will. No weapon of war remains un-countered for long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Design a radio control airplane that can shoot these drones down.If we do n't do it , someone else will .
No weapon of war remains un-countered for long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Design a radio control airplane that can shoot these drones down.If we don't do it, someone else will.
No weapon of war remains un-countered for long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28384803</id>
	<title>Drone fleets WTH?</title>
	<author>Kareya</author>
	<datestamp>1245340560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get so freakishly angry when I read these articles. What/why makes people so intent of killing other human beings? I know it goes on, yes. but I can't for the life of me understand why?
Please cannot someone instead invent the unlimited energy machine just to make this shit go away.
"Wow I just invented a faster way of killing people, remotely!!" FU! I say, you should be ashamed of yourself. Invent something useful instead.
Many of us are still in the animal stage and have to maintain the integrity of our territory. Wake the fuck up! It isn't about your land or your views of god or whatever. There are atleast 6 billion! people on this earth that do not share your entire life vision. Learn to coexist.
Protection is one thing of course, but when you see you are winning by 6000 points in some game, can't you have the dignity to at least give the opposing team some pointers(money, whatever, instead of a war budget huge as Mount Everest) in how to play the game? "They"(oooooh) aren't always out to kill you, "they" want a decent life and(often) some improvement for their offspring, that's all.
Of course there are some charismatic numbnuts trying to influence people to do stupid things, this is where information comes in(IT). Give them information, give them means to communicate.
But FFS, stop bombing the shit out of everyone, it isn't useful,successful nor human.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get so freakishly angry when I read these articles .
What/why makes people so intent of killing other human beings ?
I know it goes on , yes .
but I ca n't for the life of me understand why ?
Please can not someone instead invent the unlimited energy machine just to make this shit go away .
" Wow I just invented a faster way of killing people , remotely ! !
" FU !
I say , you should be ashamed of yourself .
Invent something useful instead .
Many of us are still in the animal stage and have to maintain the integrity of our territory .
Wake the fuck up !
It is n't about your land or your views of god or whatever .
There are atleast 6 billion !
people on this earth that do not share your entire life vision .
Learn to coexist .
Protection is one thing of course , but when you see you are winning by 6000 points in some game , ca n't you have the dignity to at least give the opposing team some pointers ( money , whatever , instead of a war budget huge as Mount Everest ) in how to play the game ?
" They " ( oooooh ) are n't always out to kill you , " they " want a decent life and ( often ) some improvement for their offspring , that 's all .
Of course there are some charismatic numbnuts trying to influence people to do stupid things , this is where information comes in ( IT ) .
Give them information , give them means to communicate .
But FFS , stop bombing the shit out of everyone , it is n't useful,successful nor human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get so freakishly angry when I read these articles.
What/why makes people so intent of killing other human beings?
I know it goes on, yes.
but I can't for the life of me understand why?
Please cannot someone instead invent the unlimited energy machine just to make this shit go away.
"Wow I just invented a faster way of killing people, remotely!!
" FU!
I say, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Invent something useful instead.
Many of us are still in the animal stage and have to maintain the integrity of our territory.
Wake the fuck up!
It isn't about your land or your views of god or whatever.
There are atleast 6 billion!
people on this earth that do not share your entire life vision.
Learn to coexist.
Protection is one thing of course, but when you see you are winning by 6000 points in some game, can't you have the dignity to at least give the opposing team some pointers(money, whatever, instead of a war budget huge as Mount Everest) in how to play the game?
"They"(oooooh) aren't always out to kill you, "they" want a decent life and(often) some improvement for their offspring, that's all.
Of course there are some charismatic numbnuts trying to influence people to do stupid things, this is where information comes in(IT).
Give them information, give them means to communicate.
But FFS, stop bombing the shit out of everyone, it isn't useful,successful nor human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368403</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest issue of the 21st century...</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1245247320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Post scarcity". Is that geekspeak for "technology will fix everything"?</p><p>If you figure out a way for technology to eliminate the scarcity of something as simple as <a href="http://whyfiles.org/131fresh\_water/2.html" title="whyfiles.org">water</a> [whyfiles.org], then I will begin to take this concept seriously. Until then, it's more Wired Magazine nonsense, totally disconnected from the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Post scarcity " .
Is that geekspeak for " technology will fix everything " ? If you figure out a way for technology to eliminate the scarcity of something as simple as water [ whyfiles.org ] , then I will begin to take this concept seriously .
Until then , it 's more Wired Magazine nonsense , totally disconnected from the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Post scarcity".
Is that geekspeak for "technology will fix everything"?If you figure out a way for technology to eliminate the scarcity of something as simple as water [whyfiles.org], then I will begin to take this concept seriously.
Until then, it's more Wired Magazine nonsense, totally disconnected from the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370607</id>
	<title>Re:loss of ressources</title>
	<author>CarbonShell</author>
	<datestamp>1245357300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is quite a blanket statement that ignores the details.<br>As you correctly say, a trauma centre is basically the same as done by the medics in the field.<br>But in this case the usage would not be restricted to the environment it is used in.</p><p>But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life, or?</p><p>You must also consider that the military programs often receive a heck of a lot more money for such specific research then you could allocate in a civilian case.<br>Plus in the civilian populace have to fight with healthcare companies that don't want to pay for anything whereas the military wants to reduce it's losses and increase the losses of the other side.</p><p>Finally the statement that 'millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war' is outright wrong.<br>Millions in war have been killed because they were sent to war. Period.<br>As mentioned, the military invests money to reduce the number of their losses. That this can also be used civilian domain was an added benefit, but was not the goal of the military.</p><p>So you cannot say the military is doing research for civilian use. They do it for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is quite a blanket statement that ignores the details.As you correctly say , a trauma centre is basically the same as done by the medics in the field.But in this case the usage would not be restricted to the environment it is used in.But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life , or ? You must also consider that the military programs often receive a heck of a lot more money for such specific research then you could allocate in a civilian case.Plus in the civilian populace have to fight with healthcare companies that do n't want to pay for anything whereas the military wants to reduce it 's losses and increase the losses of the other side.Finally the statement that 'millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war ' is outright wrong.Millions in war have been killed because they were sent to war .
Period.As mentioned , the military invests money to reduce the number of their losses .
That this can also be used civilian domain was an added benefit , but was not the goal of the military.So you can not say the military is doing research for civilian use .
They do it for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is quite a blanket statement that ignores the details.As you correctly say, a trauma centre is basically the same as done by the medics in the field.But in this case the usage would not be restricted to the environment it is used in.But a flying attack drone is not really something you need in civilian life, or?You must also consider that the military programs often receive a heck of a lot more money for such specific research then you could allocate in a civilian case.Plus in the civilian populace have to fight with healthcare companies that don't want to pay for anything whereas the military wants to reduce it's losses and increase the losses of the other side.Finally the statement that 'millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war' is outright wrong.Millions in war have been killed because they were sent to war.
Period.As mentioned, the military invests money to reduce the number of their losses.
That this can also be used civilian domain was an added benefit, but was not the goal of the military.So you cannot say the military is doing research for civilian use.
They do it for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367949</id>
	<title>Supply another terrorist state with arms</title>
	<author>smooth123</author>
	<datestamp>1245243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will it be understood that supplying one terrorist state (Pakistan) with arms to wipe out another group of terrorists never works....
It did not work when Afghans were armed to fight the USSR, look how that backfired....
It did not work when Saddam was armed to create disharmony in Iran, the last 5 years are proof of that folly....
How stupid can people be, oh well don't answer that, 8 yrs of a moron as supreme leader answers the question.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will it be understood that supplying one terrorist state ( Pakistan ) with arms to wipe out another group of terrorists never works... . It did not work when Afghans were armed to fight the USSR , look how that backfired... . It did not work when Saddam was armed to create disharmony in Iran , the last 5 years are proof of that folly... . How stupid can people be , oh well do n't answer that , 8 yrs of a moron as supreme leader answers the question.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will it be understood that supplying one terrorist state (Pakistan) with arms to wipe out another group of terrorists never works....
It did not work when Afghans were armed to fight the USSR, look how that backfired....
It did not work when Saddam was armed to create disharmony in Iran, the last 5 years are proof of that folly....
How stupid can people be, oh well don't answer that, 8 yrs of a moron as supreme leader answers the question.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28377777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28379993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28381681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28372581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28375237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28378589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2212247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28379993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28375237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28381681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28377777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28370459
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28371485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28369295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28372581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28373423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28368487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2212247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28378589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2212247.28367431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
