<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_0146252</id>
	<title>Bozeman, MT Drops Password Info Requirement</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245489120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mcmoodle writes <i>"Bozeman, Montana has decided that <a href="http://montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10558291">they don't want applicant personal information after all</a>, citing a worldwide backlash on the issue:
'"Effective at noon today the city of Bozeman permanently ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/18/1736257&amp;tid=158">provide their usernames or passwords</a> for candidates' internet sites," said Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager. ... Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community." Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed. Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mcmoodle writes " Bozeman , Montana has decided that they do n't want applicant personal information after all , citing a worldwide backlash on the issue : ' " Effective at noon today the city of Bozeman permanently ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates ' internet sites , " said Chris Kukulski , Bozeman City Manager .
... Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today , officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace , " exceeded that which is acceptable to our community .
" Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world .
' I did n't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed .
Now I 'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mcmoodle writes "Bozeman, Montana has decided that they don't want applicant personal information after all, citing a worldwide backlash on the issue:
'"Effective at noon today the city of Bozeman permanently ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sites," said Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager.
... Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community.
" Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.
' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed.
Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400423</id>
	<title>Yet another real-life Dilbert moment ...</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1245494760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's hear it for management. Whilst much of "management" is honest (and necessary) work, the scope for idiocy is greater than anywhere else. And that's because much of management involves the wielding of power and authority. Challenging a management decision is never seen as an exercise in objective criticism, but always as a power struggle, and treated as such.
<p>
Whenever a management decisions will be visible to those who are not subject to the decision-maker's authority, "management" is often seen to drastically scale back the scope of what it first mandated as necessary, instated as "policy", and enforced. The downside is that climbdowns are rarely the result of a realization of "Oops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what we did was really stupid, so lets not do it anymore", but mostly "Oops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we're getting bad publicity on this one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... time to do some managerial damage control". Stupidity remains unchallenged (unless it can be used by a manager to discredit a rival).
</p><p>
This example is also a salutary lesson for those who thought that Dilbert stories are all based in an imaginary world. As Scott Adams said: many of his examples come from real-life occurrences that he either witnessed himself or were emailed to him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hear it for management .
Whilst much of " management " is honest ( and necessary ) work , the scope for idiocy is greater than anywhere else .
And that 's because much of management involves the wielding of power and authority .
Challenging a management decision is never seen as an exercise in objective criticism , but always as a power struggle , and treated as such .
Whenever a management decisions will be visible to those who are not subject to the decision-maker 's authority , " management " is often seen to drastically scale back the scope of what it first mandated as necessary , instated as " policy " , and enforced .
The downside is that climbdowns are rarely the result of a realization of " Oops ... what we did was really stupid , so lets not do it anymore " , but mostly " Oops ... we 're getting bad publicity on this one ... time to do some managerial damage control " .
Stupidity remains unchallenged ( unless it can be used by a manager to discredit a rival ) .
This example is also a salutary lesson for those who thought that Dilbert stories are all based in an imaginary world .
As Scott Adams said : many of his examples come from real-life occurrences that he either witnessed himself or were emailed to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hear it for management.
Whilst much of "management" is honest (and necessary) work, the scope for idiocy is greater than anywhere else.
And that's because much of management involves the wielding of power and authority.
Challenging a management decision is never seen as an exercise in objective criticism, but always as a power struggle, and treated as such.
Whenever a management decisions will be visible to those who are not subject to the decision-maker's authority, "management" is often seen to drastically scale back the scope of what it first mandated as necessary, instated as "policy", and enforced.
The downside is that climbdowns are rarely the result of a realization of "Oops ... what we did was really stupid, so lets not do it anymore", but mostly "Oops ... we're getting bad publicity on this one ... time to do some managerial damage control".
Stupidity remains unchallenged (unless it can be used by a manager to discredit a rival).
This example is also a salutary lesson for those who thought that Dilbert stories are all based in an imaginary world.
As Scott Adams said: many of his examples come from real-life occurrences that he either witnessed himself or were emailed to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401415</id>
	<title>Bozeman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245509400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait... Bozeman, Montana?<br> <br>suddenoutbreakofwarpdrive</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... Bozeman , Montana ?
suddenoutbreakofwarpdrive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... Bozeman, Montana?
suddenoutbreakofwarpdrive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401579</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1245510840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.</p></div><p>Actually, that was the submitter's comment, not the City Manager's comment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.Actually , that was the submitter 's comment , not the City Manager 's comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.Actually, that was the submitter's comment, not the City Manager's comment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404271</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>gonz</author>
	<datestamp>1245492000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to read Daniel Solove's PDF, but fell asleep around page 15.  His citations are mostly from anonymous internet blog posters, and the essay has a rambling nature that wanders down every side street before (presumably) arriving at some kind of conclusion.  That's a great style for a college PhD thesis, but I'm not a panel of professors obligated to read every page he writes.  To be persuasive, he needs to convince me that his essay is worth my time.  Instead of 3 pages outlining the document structure and 25 pages slowly building to a point, it should have been 3 pages summarizing the thesis and 25 pages of supplementary minutia.</p><p>-Gonz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to read Daniel Solove 's PDF , but fell asleep around page 15 .
His citations are mostly from anonymous internet blog posters , and the essay has a rambling nature that wanders down every side street before ( presumably ) arriving at some kind of conclusion .
That 's a great style for a college PhD thesis , but I 'm not a panel of professors obligated to read every page he writes .
To be persuasive , he needs to convince me that his essay is worth my time .
Instead of 3 pages outlining the document structure and 25 pages slowly building to a point , it should have been 3 pages summarizing the thesis and 25 pages of supplementary minutia.-Gonz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to read Daniel Solove's PDF, but fell asleep around page 15.
His citations are mostly from anonymous internet blog posters, and the essay has a rambling nature that wanders down every side street before (presumably) arriving at some kind of conclusion.
That's a great style for a college PhD thesis, but I'm not a panel of professors obligated to read every page he writes.
To be persuasive, he needs to convince me that his essay is worth my time.
Instead of 3 pages outlining the document structure and 25 pages slowly building to a point, it should have been 3 pages summarizing the thesis and 25 pages of supplementary minutia.-Gonz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400333</id>
	<title>REMOVE LOUIS FROM L4D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose that we remove Louis from L4D, nobody can relate to him because he is a nigger.</p><p>I'm sure people that play left 4 dead will get on their computers and join a lobby for some No Mercy campaign fun, only to find that all the infected are taken. this is undeniably the case most of the time.</p><p>You decide "oh well, at least you can play as bill, hes a badass Vietnam veteran and probably raped some azn girl while he was setting villages on fire" But, you are disappointed as somebody already joined and took him first... hes always taken first god damnit.</p><p>well, then there is the next best choice, Zoey. The lovable teenage slut has always provoked some kind of perverted thought in L4D gamers and when they go to patch her up with first aid they cream themselves at getting this close to a woman, virtual or not. So with all the extra help around, playing as Zoey should be a breeze, right? Well, some fucker already took that second... now the sudden realization dawns on you, you have two choices left.</p><p>One is the faggot biker Francis, that only acts like hes interested in Zoey as to throw of the trail that he secretly would fuck Bill so hard in the ass given the chance. The other choice, though, is worse. it's a fucking nigger.</p><p>I mean sure, he isn't hindered in any way, well... not in physical gameplay at least. But you soon will realize after playing a couple rounds being a nigger, every time you get pounced, smoked, or somebody accidentally clips him with a bullet, he has to open his fat lips to shout louder then any of the other survivors and speaks in a vernacular that just makes me sick to hear it.</p><p>If we were to get rid of Louis, teamkilling "accidents" will be cut down by 50\%, and the survivor morale will increase dramatically, no longer burdened by some filthy, loud, beast.</p><p>But, I am only one person, I will need the help of all you fellow people that enjoy L4D, but their experience is hindered by the sight of this dirty chicken eating coon. Shall We receive enough signatures, Valve will soon know the errors of their ways and create an alternative to being such a disgraceful character.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>The Undersigned</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose that we remove Louis from L4D , nobody can relate to him because he is a nigger.I 'm sure people that play left 4 dead will get on their computers and join a lobby for some No Mercy campaign fun , only to find that all the infected are taken .
this is undeniably the case most of the time.You decide " oh well , at least you can play as bill , hes a badass Vietnam veteran and probably raped some azn girl while he was setting villages on fire " But , you are disappointed as somebody already joined and took him first... hes always taken first god damnit.well , then there is the next best choice , Zoey .
The lovable teenage slut has always provoked some kind of perverted thought in L4D gamers and when they go to patch her up with first aid they cream themselves at getting this close to a woman , virtual or not .
So with all the extra help around , playing as Zoey should be a breeze , right ?
Well , some fucker already took that second... now the sudden realization dawns on you , you have two choices left.One is the faggot biker Francis , that only acts like hes interested in Zoey as to throw of the trail that he secretly would fuck Bill so hard in the ass given the chance .
The other choice , though , is worse .
it 's a fucking nigger.I mean sure , he is n't hindered in any way , well... not in physical gameplay at least .
But you soon will realize after playing a couple rounds being a nigger , every time you get pounced , smoked , or somebody accidentally clips him with a bullet , he has to open his fat lips to shout louder then any of the other survivors and speaks in a vernacular that just makes me sick to hear it.If we were to get rid of Louis , teamkilling " accidents " will be cut down by 50 \ % , and the survivor morale will increase dramatically , no longer burdened by some filthy , loud , beast.But , I am only one person , I will need the help of all you fellow people that enjoy L4D , but their experience is hindered by the sight of this dirty chicken eating coon .
Shall We receive enough signatures , Valve will soon know the errors of their ways and create an alternative to being such a disgraceful character.Sincerely,The Undersigned</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose that we remove Louis from L4D, nobody can relate to him because he is a nigger.I'm sure people that play left 4 dead will get on their computers and join a lobby for some No Mercy campaign fun, only to find that all the infected are taken.
this is undeniably the case most of the time.You decide "oh well, at least you can play as bill, hes a badass Vietnam veteran and probably raped some azn girl while he was setting villages on fire" But, you are disappointed as somebody already joined and took him first... hes always taken first god damnit.well, then there is the next best choice, Zoey.
The lovable teenage slut has always provoked some kind of perverted thought in L4D gamers and when they go to patch her up with first aid they cream themselves at getting this close to a woman, virtual or not.
So with all the extra help around, playing as Zoey should be a breeze, right?
Well, some fucker already took that second... now the sudden realization dawns on you, you have two choices left.One is the faggot biker Francis, that only acts like hes interested in Zoey as to throw of the trail that he secretly would fuck Bill so hard in the ass given the chance.
The other choice, though, is worse.
it's a fucking nigger.I mean sure, he isn't hindered in any way, well... not in physical gameplay at least.
But you soon will realize after playing a couple rounds being a nigger, every time you get pounced, smoked, or somebody accidentally clips him with a bullet, he has to open his fat lips to shout louder then any of the other survivors and speaks in a vernacular that just makes me sick to hear it.If we were to get rid of Louis, teamkilling "accidents" will be cut down by 50\%, and the survivor morale will increase dramatically, no longer burdened by some filthy, loud, beast.But, I am only one person, I will need the help of all you fellow people that enjoy L4D, but their experience is hindered by the sight of this dirty chicken eating coon.
Shall We receive enough signatures, Valve will soon know the errors of their ways and create an alternative to being such a disgraceful character.Sincerely,The Undersigned</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400563</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>WWWWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245496860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent.</p></div><p>Records are records, but information that could be used to harm an individual in any way must be defended. The risk for that is just too great.</p><p>I don't mind if any employer wanted my Slashdot user name just to see what I post here (well, they'd have good time hunting some of the boring comments I've posted as AC). What I post is publicly available information. If they wanted my password, I'd be a little bit worried if they would suddenly start spamming corporate propaganda <em>under my name</em> - that would be a little bit awkward, now wouldn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Records are records , and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such , it 's not something you can completely prevent.Records are records , but information that could be used to harm an individual in any way must be defended .
The risk for that is just too great.I do n't mind if any employer wanted my Slashdot user name just to see what I post here ( well , they 'd have good time hunting some of the boring comments I 've posted as AC ) .
What I post is publicly available information .
If they wanted my password , I 'd be a little bit worried if they would suddenly start spamming corporate propaganda under my name - that would be a little bit awkward , now would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent.Records are records, but information that could be used to harm an individual in any way must be defended.
The risk for that is just too great.I don't mind if any employer wanted my Slashdot user name just to see what I post here (well, they'd have good time hunting some of the boring comments I've posted as AC).
What I post is publicly available information.
If they wanted my password, I'd be a little bit worried if they would suddenly start spamming corporate propaganda under my name - that would be a little bit awkward, now wouldn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402481</id>
	<title>Not good enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245518700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook, MySpace -- I'll be candid, I hate your sites conceptually.  I won't register, I never will because of issues like the one in the article.</p><p>That stated, if you read this--You'll get a lot more support from me (maybe the community)--if you man up, do the right thing--and take the city to court for unauthorized access, trespassing, and violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.</p><p>I realize...legal things are expensive--but other than the applicant's you're the only place that can claim damages (and you can claim damages--this just proved to me why I shouldn't register for your site).  Given the way jury suits go--you may even win the jackpot--and like any trespassing--it's of course trivial to show $5000 in damages (heck, just the analysis alone you do will likely cost that much).</p><p>Every single person they checked was a violation of your terms of service--and we already have precedent that abuse of TOS constitutes unauthorized access.  Please--send them a bill for your research and account verification, and start the process off with a friendly police report.  You're not just helping the community--you're protecting your own interests.  The *only* site I would ever consider joining would pretty much have to fight measures like this tooth and nail, so I was guaranteed to be talking with...who I'm supposed to, and only them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook , MySpace -- I 'll be candid , I hate your sites conceptually .
I wo n't register , I never will because of issues like the one in the article.That stated , if you read this--You 'll get a lot more support from me ( maybe the community ) --if you man up , do the right thing--and take the city to court for unauthorized access , trespassing , and violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.I realize...legal things are expensive--but other than the applicant 's you 're the only place that can claim damages ( and you can claim damages--this just proved to me why I should n't register for your site ) .
Given the way jury suits go--you may even win the jackpot--and like any trespassing--it 's of course trivial to show $ 5000 in damages ( heck , just the analysis alone you do will likely cost that much ) .Every single person they checked was a violation of your terms of service--and we already have precedent that abuse of TOS constitutes unauthorized access .
Please--send them a bill for your research and account verification , and start the process off with a friendly police report .
You 're not just helping the community--you 're protecting your own interests .
The * only * site I would ever consider joining would pretty much have to fight measures like this tooth and nail , so I was guaranteed to be talking with...who I 'm supposed to , and only them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook, MySpace -- I'll be candid, I hate your sites conceptually.
I won't register, I never will because of issues like the one in the article.That stated, if you read this--You'll get a lot more support from me (maybe the community)--if you man up, do the right thing--and take the city to court for unauthorized access, trespassing, and violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.I realize...legal things are expensive--but other than the applicant's you're the only place that can claim damages (and you can claim damages--this just proved to me why I shouldn't register for your site).
Given the way jury suits go--you may even win the jackpot--and like any trespassing--it's of course trivial to show $5000 in damages (heck, just the analysis alone you do will likely cost that much).Every single person they checked was a violation of your terms of service--and we already have precedent that abuse of TOS constitutes unauthorized access.
Please--send them a bill for your research and account verification, and start the process off with a friendly police report.
You're not just helping the community--you're protecting your own interests.
The *only* site I would ever consider joining would pretty much have to fight measures like this tooth and nail, so I was guaranteed to be talking with...who I'm supposed to, and only them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28408003</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Sethumme</author>
	<datestamp>1245522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, "property of the city" doesn't mean anything if they haven't already used those passwords to access the "private" information.  If they're quick enough, the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak.  On the other hand, having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search.  If you publish it online, it's no longer private.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , " property of the city " does n't mean anything if they have n't already used those passwords to access the " private " information .
If they 're quick enough , the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak .
On the other hand , having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search .
If you publish it online , it 's no longer private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, "property of the city" doesn't mean anything if they haven't already used those passwords to access the "private" information.
If they're quick enough, the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak.
On the other hand, having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search.
If you publish it online, it's no longer private.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400875</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245502500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?</p><p>Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.</p></div><p>Consent is the requirement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that a person 's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements ? Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person 's passwords without their consent is a crime.Consent is the requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.Consent is the requirement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406959</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, worldwide backlashes.</title>
	<author>AlHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1245512280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What else can we start worldwide backlashes against? They seem to fucking work.</p><p>May I suggest a worldwide backlash against mandatory health insurance?<br><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/20/1844214" title="slashdot.org">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/20/1844214</a> [slashdot.org] <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... would require all Americans to obtain health insurance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What else can we start worldwide backlashes against ?
They seem to fucking work.May I suggest a worldwide backlash against mandatory health insurance ? http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/20/1844214 [ slashdot.org ] ... would require all Americans to obtain health insurance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What else can we start worldwide backlashes against?
They seem to fucking work.May I suggest a worldwide backlash against mandatory health insurance?http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/20/1844214 [slashdot.org]  ... would require all Americans to obtain health insurance</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404781</id>
	<title>Likely illeagal</title>
	<author>pigwiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1245496320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My facebook profile's arguably most prominent features are my religious and political affiliation, marital status, and age.  It is illegal to ask about this stuff when being considered for a job.  I think it would be very easy to argue that they are in effect asking these questions when they require access to the profile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My facebook profile 's arguably most prominent features are my religious and political affiliation , marital status , and age .
It is illegal to ask about this stuff when being considered for a job .
I think it would be very easy to argue that they are in effect asking these questions when they require access to the profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My facebook profile's arguably most prominent features are my religious and political affiliation, marital status, and age.
It is illegal to ask about this stuff when being considered for a job.
I think it would be very easy to argue that they are in effect asking these questions when they require access to the profile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401061</id>
	<title>We could be the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.</p></div><p>There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds: <a href="http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page" title="metagovernment.org" rel="nofollow">http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page</a> [metagovernment.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government .
... As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something , there are no laws that can truly restrict it.There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds : http : //metagovernment.org/wiki/Main \ _Page [ metagovernment.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government.
...  As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page [metagovernment.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402679</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>nester</author>
	<datestamp>1245520920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe 85min was covered other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe 85min was covered other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe 85min was covered other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419</id>
	<title>Re:If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, this is not a cabinet position. This is fucking Bozeman, Montana, which no one had heard of until they pulled this stunt.</p><p>Second, who watches the watchers?</p><p>Third, define "nothing to hide"? As a simple example, I don't think my body is horrible, though it could certainly be better. That doesn't mean I want to be strip-searched to get on the bus to go to work.</p><p>It's not about whether you have anything "suspicious" worth hiding. It's about whether you have anything you'd consider private. There's a reason privacy is part of the universal declaration of human rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , this is not a cabinet position .
This is fucking Bozeman , Montana , which no one had heard of until they pulled this stunt.Second , who watches the watchers ? Third , define " nothing to hide " ?
As a simple example , I do n't think my body is horrible , though it could certainly be better .
That does n't mean I want to be strip-searched to get on the bus to go to work.It 's not about whether you have anything " suspicious " worth hiding .
It 's about whether you have anything you 'd consider private .
There 's a reason privacy is part of the universal declaration of human rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, this is not a cabinet position.
This is fucking Bozeman, Montana, which no one had heard of until they pulled this stunt.Second, who watches the watchers?Third, define "nothing to hide"?
As a simple example, I don't think my body is horrible, though it could certainly be better.
That doesn't mean I want to be strip-searched to get on the bus to go to work.It's not about whether you have anything "suspicious" worth hiding.
It's about whether you have anything you'd consider private.
There's a reason privacy is part of the universal declaration of human rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400455</id>
	<title>14th Amendment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245495240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment.  If they did go thru any of the private accounts, they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.</p><p>BTW, As elephants... We are legion/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment .
If they did go thru any of the private accounts , they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.BTW , As elephants... We are legion/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment.
If they did go thru any of the private accounts, they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.BTW, As elephants... We are legion/.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402791</id>
	<title>Re:Change Password</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1245521820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Fill out form, including password.<br>2. Send it in<br>3. Change password</p><p>Sheesh.</p></div><p>Or you could stop shaving your pussy, tell them "None of your goddamn business", and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request. If the people in power don't get opposed, then they will just continue to ask for more.</p><p>You would think Americans, from a country borne of revolution, would be less inclined to just say "YES" to everything an elected official (or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat)  dreams up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Fill out form , including password.2 .
Send it in3 .
Change passwordSheesh.Or you could stop shaving your pussy , tell them " None of your goddamn business " , and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request .
If the people in power do n't get opposed , then they will just continue to ask for more.You would think Americans , from a country borne of revolution , would be less inclined to just say " YES " to everything an elected official ( or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat ) dreams up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Fill out form, including password.2.
Send it in3.
Change passwordSheesh.Or you could stop shaving your pussy, tell them "None of your goddamn business", and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request.
If the people in power don't get opposed, then they will just continue to ask for more.You would think Americans, from a country borne of revolution, would be less inclined to just say "YES" to everything an elected official (or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat)  dreams up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400393</id>
	<title>Unprintable charecters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gave them all my passwords, but each had at least one character that was unprintable, unpronounceable and ambiguous when written down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave them all my passwords , but each had at least one character that was unprintable , unpronounceable and ambiguous when written down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave them all my passwords, but each had at least one character that was unprintable, unpronounceable and ambiguous when written down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401241</id>
	<title>"Celebrate Diversity"</title>
	<author>Tokolosh</author>
	<datestamp>1245507960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think diversity is a Good Thing. It avoids the formation of a monoculture, groupthink and organizations susceptible to a single adverse event (see Wall Street). Of course diversity is not measured by skin color, but by many factors, such as culture, education, language, gender, sexual orientation, origin, tolerance of risk, and finally, character. When Bozeman says it wants to check job candidates' "character", you can be sure that it is not to create diversity, but to eliminate anyone with an original thought.</p><p>Bozeman is not unique in this regard, which is why I look at corporations' and educational institutions' pious diversity statements with such pity. Such a culture will be the loser in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think diversity is a Good Thing .
It avoids the formation of a monoculture , groupthink and organizations susceptible to a single adverse event ( see Wall Street ) .
Of course diversity is not measured by skin color , but by many factors , such as culture , education , language , gender , sexual orientation , origin , tolerance of risk , and finally , character .
When Bozeman says it wants to check job candidates ' " character " , you can be sure that it is not to create diversity , but to eliminate anyone with an original thought.Bozeman is not unique in this regard , which is why I look at corporations ' and educational institutions ' pious diversity statements with such pity .
Such a culture will be the loser in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think diversity is a Good Thing.
It avoids the formation of a monoculture, groupthink and organizations susceptible to a single adverse event (see Wall Street).
Of course diversity is not measured by skin color, but by many factors, such as culture, education, language, gender, sexual orientation, origin, tolerance of risk, and finally, character.
When Bozeman says it wants to check job candidates' "character", you can be sure that it is not to create diversity, but to eliminate anyone with an original thought.Bozeman is not unique in this regard, which is why I look at corporations' and educational institutions' pious diversity statements with such pity.
Such a culture will be the loser in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401855</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>htdrifter</author>
	<datestamp>1245513060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it's not something you can completely prevent.</p><p>You can prevent it by saying NO and walking away.<br>If you don't have the stones to say no then your password is the least of your problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's not something you can completely prevent.You can prevent it by saying NO and walking away.If you do n't have the stones to say no then your password is the least of your problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it's not something you can completely prevent.You can prevent it by saying NO and walking away.If you don't have the stones to say no then your password is the least of your problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400631</id>
	<title>90 minutes?</title>
	<author>lgftsa</author>
	<datestamp>1245497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously people, pull your fingers out.</p><p>Then again, it could have been a 1 minute vote and then 89 minutes of pin-the-blame on whoever's not there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously people , pull your fingers out.Then again , it could have been a 1 minute vote and then 89 minutes of pin-the-blame on whoever 's not there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously people, pull your fingers out.Then again, it could have been a 1 minute vote and then 89 minutes of pin-the-blame on whoever's not there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400445</id>
	<title>What leaders are getting fired?</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1245495000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... citing a worldwide backlash... ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sites</p></div><p>The common sense question would be why hasn't the city Manager and his accomplices been fired without severance because of this severe incompetence and lack of judgment. Reacting to a reaction is the <i>worse</i> kind of Management. These people should show some Leadership and resign from their positions without asking for severance pay or Letters of Reference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... citing a worldwide backlash... ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates ' internet sitesThe common sense question would be why has n't the city Manager and his accomplices been fired without severance because of this severe incompetence and lack of judgment .
Reacting to a reaction is the worse kind of Management .
These people should show some Leadership and resign from their positions without asking for severance pay or Letters of Reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... citing a worldwide backlash... ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sitesThe common sense question would be why hasn't the city Manager and his accomplices been fired without severance because of this severe incompetence and lack of judgment.
Reacting to a reaction is the worse kind of Management.
These people should show some Leadership and resign from their positions without asking for severance pay or Letters of Reference.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403151</id>
	<title>Public yet personal</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1245524820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they still asking for a list of each applicant's personal websites? It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information. It's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant's public websites on its own, but to force disclosure of an applicant's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant's personal affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they still asking for a list of each applicant 's personal websites ?
It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information .
It 's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant 's public websites on its own , but to force disclosure of an applicant 's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant 's personal affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they still asking for a list of each applicant's personal websites?
It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information.
It's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant's public websites on its own, but to force disclosure of an applicant's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant's personal affairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402903</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Windrip</author>
	<datestamp>1245522540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for reposting that link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for reposting that link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for reposting that link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28537085</id>
	<title>Bozeman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in bozeman, this is typical.  Its a great place to live except for all of the hippie/communists. The city government is always introducing weird laws.  They fight to limit the size of stores or just keep them out.  (like best buy).  I have the feeling its really corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in bozeman , this is typical .
Its a great place to live except for all of the hippie/communists .
The city government is always introducing weird laws .
They fight to limit the size of stores or just keep them out .
( like best buy ) .
I have the feeling its really corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in bozeman, this is typical.
Its a great place to live except for all of the hippie/communists.
The city government is always introducing weird laws.
They fight to limit the size of stores or just keep them out.
(like best buy).
I have the feeling its really corrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406407</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, worldwide backlashes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about the 2010 census 'book' ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about the 2010 census 'book ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about the 2010 census 'book' ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401333</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1245508620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Management?</p></div><p>I would think the statement answers the question.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid .
How do people get into Management ? I would think the statement answers the question..... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid.
How do people get into Management?I would think the statement answers the question..... :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403895</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>MLease</author>
	<datestamp>1245531540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Management?</i></p><p>I thought stupidity was a prerequisite?</p><p>-Mike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid .
How do people get into Management ? I thought stupidity was a prerequisite ? -Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid.
How do people get into Management?I thought stupidity was a prerequisite?-Mike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1245496620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>shows that the city still doesn't "get it." They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community." Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed. Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!"</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, I would say they don't fucking get it. It took them 90 minutes to decide it was a bad idea apparently and that the backlash was not worth it. 90 minutes.  1 1/2 HOURS.  If they understood it at all, the implications of what they were doing, the violations of people's privacy and freedoms, it would *not* have taken anywhere near 90 minutes.  I can imagine it was mostly about how they could spin it a different way and still get the information.</p><p>You can see it was just marketing PR with their half-assed insincere apology about it being unacceptable to the community.</p><p>Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.  Translation:  "We had to stop doing it because of the whiners, but at least we got to find out how many people <i>would</i> put up with our shit".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>shows that the city still does n't " get it .
" They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset , and figured they 'd back away from something they just do n't grasp...Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today , officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace , " exceeded that which is acceptable to our community .
" Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world .
' I did n't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed .
Now I 'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through !
" Yeah , I would say they do n't fucking get it .
It took them 90 minutes to decide it was a bad idea apparently and that the backlash was not worth it .
90 minutes .
1 1/2 HOURS .
If they understood it at all , the implications of what they were doing , the violations of people 's privacy and freedoms , it would * not * have taken anywhere near 90 minutes .
I can imagine it was mostly about how they could spin it a different way and still get the information.You can see it was just marketing PR with their half-assed insincere apology about it being unacceptable to the community.Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got .
Translation : " We had to stop doing it because of the whiners , but at least we got to find out how many people would put up with our shit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shows that the city still doesn't "get it.
" They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community.
" Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.
' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed.
Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!
" Yeah, I would say they don't fucking get it.
It took them 90 minutes to decide it was a bad idea apparently and that the backlash was not worth it.
90 minutes.
1 1/2 HOURS.
If they understood it at all, the implications of what they were doing, the violations of people's privacy and freedoms, it would *not* have taken anywhere near 90 minutes.
I can imagine it was mostly about how they could spin it a different way and still get the information.You can see it was just marketing PR with their half-assed insincere apology about it being unacceptable to the community.Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.
Translation:  "We had to stop doing it because of the whiners, but at least we got to find out how many people would put up with our shit".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400663</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly does the TOS for Myspace/Facebook et al have to say about this? Isn't sharing your password a no-no?</p><p>
The Lori Drew case showed that violating a website TOS is worth jail time, so I wonder what trouble the city has earned itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly does the TOS for Myspace/Facebook et al have to say about this ?
Is n't sharing your password a no-no ?
The Lori Drew case showed that violating a website TOS is worth jail time , so I wonder what trouble the city has earned itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly does the TOS for Myspace/Facebook et al have to say about this?
Isn't sharing your password a no-no?
The Lori Drew case showed that violating a website TOS is worth jail time, so I wonder what trouble the city has earned itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400617</id>
	<title>That was fast</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1245497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The story broke on June 17 and by the 20th they had smartened up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story broke on June 17 and by the 20th they had smartened up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story broke on June 17 and by the 20th they had smartened up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403115</id>
	<title>Re:If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nothing to hide argument is fallacious, and has been proven so many times.  For example, people could state that locks on doors are not needed.  However, locks are generally not there to protect against police; they are there as a deterrent against criminals (I say deterrent because it doesn't matter how strong a lock is, it will be broken, its just how much time and expertise it takes, from having the right bump key, to getting the drill templates for a TL 30 x 6 safe.)</p><p>Same with passwords.  The city might be completely honest, but if the file cabinet with the paper applications gets broken into, the thieves make off with a lot of critical information that can be used for identity theft, blackmail, extortion on both the city and its employees.</p><p>There is also the employee/employer relationship.  I'm sure no random employer will hand me over their Administrator/SA/root/oracle/SAP*/etc. passwords to all their systems if I'm being hired for something where that access is not relevant.  Same with the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nothing to hide argument is fallacious , and has been proven so many times .
For example , people could state that locks on doors are not needed .
However , locks are generally not there to protect against police ; they are there as a deterrent against criminals ( I say deterrent because it does n't matter how strong a lock is , it will be broken , its just how much time and expertise it takes , from having the right bump key , to getting the drill templates for a TL 30 x 6 safe .
) Same with passwords .
The city might be completely honest , but if the file cabinet with the paper applications gets broken into , the thieves make off with a lot of critical information that can be used for identity theft , blackmail , extortion on both the city and its employees.There is also the employee/employer relationship .
I 'm sure no random employer will hand me over their Administrator/SA/root/oracle/SAP * /etc .
passwords to all their systems if I 'm being hired for something where that access is not relevant .
Same with the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nothing to hide argument is fallacious, and has been proven so many times.
For example, people could state that locks on doors are not needed.
However, locks are generally not there to protect against police; they are there as a deterrent against criminals (I say deterrent because it doesn't matter how strong a lock is, it will be broken, its just how much time and expertise it takes, from having the right bump key, to getting the drill templates for a TL 30 x 6 safe.
)Same with passwords.
The city might be completely honest, but if the file cabinet with the paper applications gets broken into, the thieves make off with a lot of critical information that can be used for identity theft, blackmail, extortion on both the city and its employees.There is also the employee/employer relationship.
I'm sure no random employer will hand me over their Administrator/SA/root/oracle/SAP*/etc.
passwords to all their systems if I'm being hired for something where that access is not relevant.
Same with the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411601</id>
	<title>Re:Was this just a puplicity stunt . . . ?</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> . . . well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.</p><p>"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>"See the lovely lakes . . . "</p><p>"Please leave your passwords at the door . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>"<b>Don't forget to say '</b>What <b> up?' to</b> the moose . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></div><p>There, fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
well , the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman , Montana .
" Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
" " See the lovely lakes .
. .
" " Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
" " Do n't forget to say 'What up ?
' to the moose .
. .
" There , fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.
"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
""See the lovely lakes .
. .
""Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
""Don't forget to say 'What  up?
' to the moose .
. .
"There, fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303</id>
	<title>We are the Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play. The legislature crafts and passes laws. The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid. And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.</p><p>But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws. It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government. Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.</p><p>FTFA:<br><i>The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city. </i></p><p>It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not. In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information. As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a system like ours , each branch of government has a specific role to play .
The legislature crafts and passes laws .
The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid .
And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws .
It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government .
Where we expect checks and balances , there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.FTFA : The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants , and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city .
It does n't matter if searching online is legal or not .
In fact , it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information .
As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something , there are no laws that can truly restrict it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play.
The legislature crafts and passes laws.
The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid.
And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws.
It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government.
Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.FTFA:The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not.
In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information.
As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400489</id>
	<title>I read the local news article</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1245495780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about this, and decided I would leave a comment. A small-print note on the page said that registration was required to leave a comment. However, there was no login or register link anywwhere that I found on the page. So I filled out a comment anyway, and I got a popup window asking for my information. I filled out my information, and clicked submit, and... nothing.
<br> <br>
My comment did not appear on the page, so I tried again to see if there was some kind of link to login, and I got some strange dropdown asking me what kind of authentication I wanted to use: gmail, Open ID, and about 7 others I did not recognize. I tried a couple that I thought might represent the agency I had just "signed up" with, but no go.
<br> <br>
Man, their website is a mess. The upshot is, though, that I never got to tell them what idiots they were being.</htmltext>
<tokenext>about this , and decided I would leave a comment .
A small-print note on the page said that registration was required to leave a comment .
However , there was no login or register link anywwhere that I found on the page .
So I filled out a comment anyway , and I got a popup window asking for my information .
I filled out my information , and clicked submit , and... nothing . My comment did not appear on the page , so I tried again to see if there was some kind of link to login , and I got some strange dropdown asking me what kind of authentication I wanted to use : gmail , Open ID , and about 7 others I did not recognize .
I tried a couple that I thought might represent the agency I had just " signed up " with , but no go .
Man , their website is a mess .
The upshot is , though , that I never got to tell them what idiots they were being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about this, and decided I would leave a comment.
A small-print note on the page said that registration was required to leave a comment.
However, there was no login or register link anywwhere that I found on the page.
So I filled out a comment anyway, and I got a popup window asking for my information.
I filled out my information, and clicked submit, and... nothing.
 
My comment did not appear on the page, so I tried again to see if there was some kind of link to login, and I got some strange dropdown asking me what kind of authentication I wanted to use: gmail, Open ID, and about 7 others I did not recognize.
I tried a couple that I thought might represent the agency I had just "signed up" with, but no go.
Man, their website is a mess.
The upshot is, though, that I never got to tell them what idiots they were being.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401993</id>
	<title>F8ro5t pist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245514260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can really ask of you're told. It's Task. Research [antI-slash.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>can really ask of you 're told .
It 's Task .
Research [ antI-slash.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can really ask of you're told.
It's Task.
Research [antI-slash.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400643</id>
	<title>It's the usual HR rubbish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the core it really comes down to wanting an excuse to justify spending half the day on the net looking at facebook etc.  Also HR is very much seasonal work where there is really nothing to do most of the time but you need enough people to cover the busy periods, so we end up with riduculous scope creep with busy work invented so that HR people can justify their existence when things are not busy.  In the places where they have facebook details they are probably spending a lot of time looking at current employees pages looking for an excuse to fire, which is a horrible waste of resources especially if they find something.  A meeting where a boss has to justify keeping an employee that has put something lewd on the net from home is a complete waste of everyone's time - it has nothing at all to do with the job<br>I may be unjustly predjudiced here since I have not yet met a HR person that was capable of doing their job effectively, but I do see this poking about on social networking sites as an irrelevant waste of time that at best can exclude good canditates for entirely fictional reasons.  Poking about people's sites and treating exaggerated stories of drunken parties as truth is not going to help the organisation at all and it's getting dangerously close the the slave owner mentality exhibited by the nastiest types of managers.  What you do on your own time never matters unless that makes you a security risk (and that will hopefully be assessed by professionals and not some idiot looking on facebook or another idiot with a "lie detector") - but we're certainly not talking about classified positions here.<br>It's just a waste of time and evidence of a mismanaged HR department.  Where I work the HR people deal with logistics during the quiet times - accomodation bookings, travel, making sure gear arrived on site etc.  At a former workplace they organised social football and other activities, dealt with charities etc.  There are plenty of things they could be doing if there is no hiring going on (and most of them should be left out of the firing process if possible - ethics is not the strong point of 99\% of HR people IMHO).</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the core it really comes down to wanting an excuse to justify spending half the day on the net looking at facebook etc .
Also HR is very much seasonal work where there is really nothing to do most of the time but you need enough people to cover the busy periods , so we end up with riduculous scope creep with busy work invented so that HR people can justify their existence when things are not busy .
In the places where they have facebook details they are probably spending a lot of time looking at current employees pages looking for an excuse to fire , which is a horrible waste of resources especially if they find something .
A meeting where a boss has to justify keeping an employee that has put something lewd on the net from home is a complete waste of everyone 's time - it has nothing at all to do with the jobI may be unjustly predjudiced here since I have not yet met a HR person that was capable of doing their job effectively , but I do see this poking about on social networking sites as an irrelevant waste of time that at best can exclude good canditates for entirely fictional reasons .
Poking about people 's sites and treating exaggerated stories of drunken parties as truth is not going to help the organisation at all and it 's getting dangerously close the the slave owner mentality exhibited by the nastiest types of managers .
What you do on your own time never matters unless that makes you a security risk ( and that will hopefully be assessed by professionals and not some idiot looking on facebook or another idiot with a " lie detector " ) - but we 're certainly not talking about classified positions here.It 's just a waste of time and evidence of a mismanaged HR department .
Where I work the HR people deal with logistics during the quiet times - accomodation bookings , travel , making sure gear arrived on site etc .
At a former workplace they organised social football and other activities , dealt with charities etc .
There are plenty of things they could be doing if there is no hiring going on ( and most of them should be left out of the firing process if possible - ethics is not the strong point of 99 \ % of HR people IMHO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the core it really comes down to wanting an excuse to justify spending half the day on the net looking at facebook etc.
Also HR is very much seasonal work where there is really nothing to do most of the time but you need enough people to cover the busy periods, so we end up with riduculous scope creep with busy work invented so that HR people can justify their existence when things are not busy.
In the places where they have facebook details they are probably spending a lot of time looking at current employees pages looking for an excuse to fire, which is a horrible waste of resources especially if they find something.
A meeting where a boss has to justify keeping an employee that has put something lewd on the net from home is a complete waste of everyone's time - it has nothing at all to do with the jobI may be unjustly predjudiced here since I have not yet met a HR person that was capable of doing their job effectively, but I do see this poking about on social networking sites as an irrelevant waste of time that at best can exclude good canditates for entirely fictional reasons.
Poking about people's sites and treating exaggerated stories of drunken parties as truth is not going to help the organisation at all and it's getting dangerously close the the slave owner mentality exhibited by the nastiest types of managers.
What you do on your own time never matters unless that makes you a security risk (and that will hopefully be assessed by professionals and not some idiot looking on facebook or another idiot with a "lie detector") - but we're certainly not talking about classified positions here.It's just a waste of time and evidence of a mismanaged HR department.
Where I work the HR people deal with logistics during the quiet times - accomodation bookings, travel, making sure gear arrived on site etc.
At a former workplace they organised social football and other activities, dealt with charities etc.
There are plenty of things they could be doing if there is no hiring going on (and most of them should be left out of the firing process if possible - ethics is not the strong point of 99\% of HR people IMHO).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400385</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?<br> <br>

Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that a person 's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements ?
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person 's passwords without their consent is a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28419543</id>
	<title>If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1245673140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... said Anonymous Coward.</p><p>For bunnies sakes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... said Anonymous Coward.For bunnies sakes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... said Anonymous Coward.For bunnies sakes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403987</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, worldwide backlashes.</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1245489240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know.   If I were a taxpayer in Bozeman, I think I'd still be pretty worried about potential liability issues.  The mere fact that the policy was withdrawn doesn't entirely address that.   From the summary, it sounds as if the person who instituted the policy in the first place thinks they went a little too far.   I would want them to realize and internalize the understanding that what they did was not an error of degree, but of kind.  Otherwise, they'll just make the same mistake again in some other situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
If I were a taxpayer in Bozeman , I think I 'd still be pretty worried about potential liability issues .
The mere fact that the policy was withdrawn does n't entirely address that .
From the summary , it sounds as if the person who instituted the policy in the first place thinks they went a little too far .
I would want them to realize and internalize the understanding that what they did was not an error of degree , but of kind .
Otherwise , they 'll just make the same mistake again in some other situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
If I were a taxpayer in Bozeman, I think I'd still be pretty worried about potential liability issues.
The mere fact that the policy was withdrawn doesn't entirely address that.
From the summary, it sounds as if the person who instituted the policy in the first place thinks they went a little too far.
I would want them to realize and internalize the understanding that what they did was not an error of degree, but of kind.
Otherwise, they'll just make the same mistake again in some other situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400793</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1245500760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city."</p><p>If only there were some way of changing your password...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Interesting that they declare the passwords they 've already received to be the " property of the city .
" If only there were some way of changing your password.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city.
"If only there were some way of changing your password...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402393</id>
	<title>Re:If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>JacobMar1ey</author>
	<datestamp>1245517560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's also the base station for some of the best backcountry skiing and riding in the US. And home to Montana State University.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also the base station for some of the best backcountry skiing and riding in the US .
And home to Montana State University .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also the base station for some of the best backcountry skiing and riding in the US.
And home to Montana State University.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400723</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1245499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's completely unenforceable</p></div><p>Don't start down the "acceptance" road already - this "hacking into job-applicants' email" malarkey was always unacceptable and should never have happened and should never happen again and any law purporting to support it must be removed, as should any politician who votes for it.</p><p>It's not time to fall-back to the "this is okay so long as it's not enforced" argument which justifies stunts like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely unenforceableDo n't start down the " acceptance " road already - this " hacking into job-applicants ' email " malarkey was always unacceptable and should never have happened and should never happen again and any law purporting to support it must be removed , as should any politician who votes for it.It 's not time to fall-back to the " this is okay so long as it 's not enforced " argument which justifies stunts like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely unenforceableDon't start down the "acceptance" road already - this "hacking into job-applicants' email" malarkey was always unacceptable and should never have happened and should never happen again and any law purporting to support it must be removed, as should any politician who votes for it.It's not time to fall-back to the "this is okay so long as it's not enforced" argument which justifies stunts like this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400573</id>
	<title>Slashdot Effect</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1245496980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to read the feature article, but I think the site is suffering from the legendary Slashdot effect, either that, or the link is broken...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to read the feature article , but I think the site is suffering from the legendary Slashdot effect , either that , or the link is broken.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to read the feature article, but I think the site is suffering from the legendary Slashdot effect, either that, or the link is broken...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403293</id>
	<title>They can reverse the policy all they want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the very fact they thought up this batshit insane idea in the first place speaks volumes about the kind of people you'd be working for if you took a job with them. No way would I work for the city of Bozeman, Montana now under any circumstances, and if I already worked there, I'd be looking for a new job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the very fact they thought up this batshit insane idea in the first place speaks volumes about the kind of people you 'd be working for if you took a job with them .
No way would I work for the city of Bozeman , Montana now under any circumstances , and if I already worked there , I 'd be looking for a new job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the very fact they thought up this batshit insane idea in the first place speaks volumes about the kind of people you'd be working for if you took a job with them.
No way would I work for the city of Bozeman, Montana now under any circumstances, and if I already worked there, I'd be looking for a new job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404311</id>
	<title>ansi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245492480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just draw a bunch of squares and say your password is in ansi. good luck typing it in assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just draw a bunch of squares and say your password is in ansi .
good luck typing it in assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just draw a bunch of squares and say your password is in ansi.
good luck typing it in assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402675</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you are being sarcastic, the Lori Drew case showed that people are perfectly willing to bend 'justice' to their own ends.</p><p>I mean, I think she is scum, but I don't want a new legal precedent every time a sufficient number of people think some woman is a huge bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you are being sarcastic , the Lori Drew case showed that people are perfectly willing to bend 'justice ' to their own ends.I mean , I think she is scum , but I do n't want a new legal precedent every time a sufficient number of people think some woman is a huge bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you are being sarcastic, the Lori Drew case showed that people are perfectly willing to bend 'justice' to their own ends.I mean, I think she is scum, but I don't want a new legal precedent every time a sufficient number of people think some woman is a huge bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103</id>
	<title>The whole password part...</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1245506100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would have been one thing had they just requested applicants list all of their social networking sites.  And even listed their usernames with each site so that they would know who they were on those sites since most people don't use their real names as their logins.  Clearly my real name is not yoshi\_mon.</p><p>It still would have been a very invasive and ethically dubious practice but not too surprising for a 'red state'.</p><p>But to then ask for peoples passwords?  That is where the whole thing gets surreal.  Why the hell do you need access to the accounts?  I've yet to see any real explanation for that part of this nonsense.  Not that there really could be a good explanation for it but I'd really like to see what kind of twisted rational was given.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been one thing had they just requested applicants list all of their social networking sites .
And even listed their usernames with each site so that they would know who they were on those sites since most people do n't use their real names as their logins .
Clearly my real name is not yoshi \ _mon.It still would have been a very invasive and ethically dubious practice but not too surprising for a 'red state'.But to then ask for peoples passwords ?
That is where the whole thing gets surreal .
Why the hell do you need access to the accounts ?
I 've yet to see any real explanation for that part of this nonsense .
Not that there really could be a good explanation for it but I 'd really like to see what kind of twisted rational was given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been one thing had they just requested applicants list all of their social networking sites.
And even listed their usernames with each site so that they would know who they were on those sites since most people don't use their real names as their logins.
Clearly my real name is not yoshi\_mon.It still would have been a very invasive and ethically dubious practice but not too surprising for a 'red state'.But to then ask for peoples passwords?
That is where the whole thing gets surreal.
Why the hell do you need access to the accounts?
I've yet to see any real explanation for that part of this nonsense.
Not that there really could be a good explanation for it but I'd really like to see what kind of twisted rational was given.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28429745</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245668040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one thing's for sure, they probably went through my file in which I gave up my mailinator account<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one thing 's for sure , they probably went through my file in which I gave up my mailinator account : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one thing's for sure, they probably went through my file in which I gave up my mailinator account :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400807</id>
	<title>Re:Change Password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4. Provisional job offer withdrawn because they cannot see your info; you are an obvious non-compliant, non-passive, individualist with something to hide.</p><p>4.5 Name is put into "Don't waste our time ever again" list.</p><p>5. No Job, No Profit.</p><p>One clear example why petty government and officials have been railed against for, well, ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Provisional job offer withdrawn because they can not see your info ; you are an obvious non-compliant , non-passive , individualist with something to hide.4.5 Name is put into " Do n't waste our time ever again " list.5 .
No Job , No Profit.One clear example why petty government and officials have been railed against for , well , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Provisional job offer withdrawn because they cannot see your info; you are an obvious non-compliant, non-passive, individualist with something to hide.4.5 Name is put into "Don't waste our time ever again" list.5.
No Job, No Profit.One clear example why petty government and officials have been railed against for, well, ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28412153</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245611100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People get into management by being less intelligent and able than their boss...Who likes competition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People get into management by being less intelligent and able than their boss...Who likes competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People get into management by being less intelligent and able than their boss...Who likes competition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</id>
	<title>Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city."</p><p>Bodes not well, that's for sure-- and it shows that the city still doesn't "get it."  They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that they declare the passwords they 've already received to be the " property of the city .
" Bodes not well , that 's for sure-- and it shows that the city still does n't " get it .
" They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset , and figured they 'd back away from something they just do n't grasp.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city.
"Bodes not well, that's for sure-- and it shows that the city still doesn't "get it.
"  They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402691</id>
	<title>Have to disagree</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1245521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have to disagree with this "The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it"..Yes, I agree that is the theory and the design and intent, The practice is, the executive branch controls all the guns and legions of unquestioning order followers. That's the reality on the ground. That's also the main reason the founders were so much against a permanent standing army, because they realized it would lead *inevitably* to an executive branch dictatorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to disagree with this " The executive can not just " do whatever it wants " unless congress and the judiciary let it " ..Yes , I agree that is the theory and the design and intent , The practice is , the executive branch controls all the guns and legions of unquestioning order followers .
That 's the reality on the ground .
That 's also the main reason the founders were so much against a permanent standing army , because they realized it would lead * inevitably * to an executive branch dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to disagree with this "The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it"..Yes, I agree that is the theory and the design and intent, The practice is, the executive branch controls all the guns and legions of unquestioning order followers.
That's the reality on the ground.
That's also the main reason the founders were so much against a permanent standing army, because they realized it would lead *inevitably* to an executive branch dictatorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245495300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's completely unenforceable. People can just claim they have no Slashdot account (for example) and therefore not have to give their passwords away. Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason. I could understand setting up temporary proxy accounts that would be used to, for example, say good things about the company in anticipation of a job interview.</p><p>The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Management?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely unenforceable .
People can just claim they have no Slashdot account ( for example ) and therefore not have to give their passwords away .
Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason .
I could understand setting up temporary proxy accounts that would be used to , for example , say good things about the company in anticipation of a job interview.The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid .
How do people get into Management ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely unenforceable.
People can just claim they have no Slashdot account (for example) and therefore not have to give their passwords away.
Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason.
I could understand setting up temporary proxy accounts that would be used to, for example, say good things about the company in anticipation of a job interview.The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid.
How do people get into Management?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301</id>
	<title>Wow, worldwide backlashes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else can we start worldwide backlashes against?  They seem to fucking work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else can we start worldwide backlashes against ?
They seem to fucking work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else can we start worldwide backlashes against?
They seem to fucking work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400405</id>
	<title>14th amendment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment.  If they did go thru any of the private accounts, they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.</p><p>BTW, We are legion/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment .
If they did go thru any of the private accounts , they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.BTW , We are legion/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem the city has been caught with its pants down on this clear violation of the 14 amendment.
If they did go thru any of the private accounts, they are in a heap of scotus doo doo.BTW, We are legion/.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400383</id>
	<title>Bozeman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the place the Vulcans landed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the place the Vulcans landed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the place the Vulcans landed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402115</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245515340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell are they using Facebook and MySpace anyway?  These are adults, that shit is for teenagers.  The fact that they HAVE these accounts should disqualify them from office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell are they using Facebook and MySpace anyway ?
These are adults , that shit is for teenagers .
The fact that they HAVE these accounts should disqualify them from office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell are they using Facebook and MySpace anyway?
These are adults, that shit is for teenagers.
The fact that they HAVE these accounts should disqualify them from office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404807</id>
	<title>Re:We could be the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245496500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.</p></div><p>There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds: <a href="http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page" title="metagovernment.org" rel="nofollow">http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page</a> [metagovernment.org] </p></div><p>Yes, because we all know how effective mob rule is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government .
... As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something , there are no laws that can truly restrict it.There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds : http : //metagovernment.org/wiki/Main \ _Page [ metagovernment.org ] Yes , because we all know how effective mob rule is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government.
...  As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.There is a movement to remove the executive and the legislature from every system and replace them with the wisdom of crowds: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main\_Page [metagovernment.org] Yes, because we all know how effective mob rule is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400521</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245496200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely they just change the password!?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely they just change the password ! ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely they just change the password!?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373</id>
	<title>Was this just a puplicity stunt . . . ?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1245494280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.
</p><p>"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
</p><p>"See the lovely lakes . . . "
</p><p>"Please leave your passwords at the door . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
</p><p>"What out for the moose . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
well , the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman , Montana .
" Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
" " See the lovely lakes .
. .
" " Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
" " What out for the moose .
. .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.
"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
"
"See the lovely lakes .
. .
"
"Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
"
"What out for the moose .
. .
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401135</id>
	<title>But who lost their job at Bozeman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the bigger question beyond the job application. I think this should spur an investigation into HR's and management's practice over at good old Bozeman. How many present employees at this place, have been forced to turn over passwords and other personal information and what was the scope information. Who else has been threatened with job loss, or loss of promotions and other intimidation. I would think if they treat prospects like this, then what about the poor souls already employed there.</p><p>When no one there saw the obvious in just how wrong that was, then you have to ask yourself. Just how persuasive is this mentality in the city structure as a whole, from top down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the bigger question beyond the job application .
I think this should spur an investigation into HR 's and management 's practice over at good old Bozeman .
How many present employees at this place , have been forced to turn over passwords and other personal information and what was the scope information .
Who else has been threatened with job loss , or loss of promotions and other intimidation .
I would think if they treat prospects like this , then what about the poor souls already employed there.When no one there saw the obvious in just how wrong that was , then you have to ask yourself .
Just how persuasive is this mentality in the city structure as a whole , from top down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the bigger question beyond the job application.
I think this should spur an investigation into HR's and management's practice over at good old Bozeman.
How many present employees at this place, have been forced to turn over passwords and other personal information and what was the scope information.
Who else has been threatened with job loss, or loss of promotions and other intimidation.
I would think if they treat prospects like this, then what about the poor souls already employed there.When no one there saw the obvious in just how wrong that was, then you have to ask yourself.
Just how persuasive is this mentality in the city structure as a whole, from top down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400571</id>
	<title>Re:We are the Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245496980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A company I worked for stood up to abusive government practices.  Now the people in the government makes them miserable by conducting many audits a year, arbitrarily mandating rules that only apply to our business and not the others in the state that are in the same business we are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company I worked for stood up to abusive government practices .
Now the people in the government makes them miserable by conducting many audits a year , arbitrarily mandating rules that only apply to our business and not the others in the state that are in the same business we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company I worked for stood up to abusive government practices.
Now the people in the government makes them miserable by conducting many audits a year, arbitrarily mandating rules that only apply to our business and not the others in the state that are in the same business we are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400711</id>
	<title>Change your passwords, IMMEDIATELY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you provided your password to people like this, when you get home, change them all immediately. Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you provided your password to people like this , when you get home , change them all immediately .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you provided your password to people like this, when you get home, change them all immediately.
Duh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402399</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, worldwide backlashes.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1245517620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Female sexual selectivity</htmltext>
<tokenext>Female sexual selectivity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Female sexual selectivity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400683</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1245498720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> In most of the places I have worked, Human Resources is stocked via lateral transfer from other areas.  They're the deadwood that can't be easily be fired, but must be moved out for the good of the department.  I'm entirely unsurprised that some HR drone came up with this idea.  Unfortunately, they're still the first people job applicants usually encounter. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most of the places I have worked , Human Resources is stocked via lateral transfer from other areas .
They 're the deadwood that ca n't be easily be fired , but must be moved out for the good of the department .
I 'm entirely unsurprised that some HR drone came up with this idea .
Unfortunately , they 're still the first people job applicants usually encounter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In most of the places I have worked, Human Resources is stocked via lateral transfer from other areas.
They're the deadwood that can't be easily be fired, but must be moved out for the good of the department.
I'm entirely unsurprised that some HR drone came up with this idea.
Unfortunately, they're still the first people job applicants usually encounter. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401209</id>
	<title>Re:Was this just a puplicity stunt . . . ?</title>
	<author>RemusX2</author>
	<datestamp>1245507540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oddly enough I have lived here in Bozeman for 4 years now and this is the first I've heard of this stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough I have lived here in Bozeman for 4 years now and this is the first I 've heard of this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough I have lived here in Bozeman for 4 years now and this is the first I've heard of this stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400603</id>
	<title>Government only hires the worst of society</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1245497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A reaction taken from the article; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Note to self, don't apply in Bozeman for a city job," one person wrote.</p></div><p>which is scary, because everyone knows that there will likely be at least one candidate who decides to apply for a job with the public service, which means the public service is going to get the cream of the intellectually dull and the morally bankrupt. They claim (as many other employers do) that it is important to hire based on a person's moral character. If these managers were not liars and hypocrites then they would insist that people prove that they are marijuana users and affirmed atheists before hiring. They would also confirm that these people are anti-war, anti-torture and against other right-wing neo-conservative ideals. If you are going to hire based on moral character, then you should make sure that the correct moral characters be hired.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reaction taken from the article ; " Note to self , do n't apply in Bozeman for a city job , " one person wrote.which is scary , because everyone knows that there will likely be at least one candidate who decides to apply for a job with the public service , which means the public service is going to get the cream of the intellectually dull and the morally bankrupt .
They claim ( as many other employers do ) that it is important to hire based on a person 's moral character .
If these managers were not liars and hypocrites then they would insist that people prove that they are marijuana users and affirmed atheists before hiring .
They would also confirm that these people are anti-war , anti-torture and against other right-wing neo-conservative ideals .
If you are going to hire based on moral character , then you should make sure that the correct moral characters be hired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reaction taken from the article; "Note to self, don't apply in Bozeman for a city job," one person wrote.which is scary, because everyone knows that there will likely be at least one candidate who decides to apply for a job with the public service, which means the public service is going to get the cream of the intellectually dull and the morally bankrupt.
They claim (as many other employers do) that it is important to hire based on a person's moral character.
If these managers were not liars and hypocrites then they would insist that people prove that they are marijuana users and affirmed atheists before hiring.
They would also confirm that these people are anti-war, anti-torture and against other right-wing neo-conservative ideals.
If you are going to hire based on moral character, then you should make sure that the correct moral characters be hired.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401559</id>
	<title>Re:We are the Law</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1245510660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it."</p><p>The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.</p><p>I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law. That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it.  The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.</p><p>The executive is supposed to take care of *running the business* of the country.   The president can Veto, sure, but congress can overrule that.<br>The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something , there are no laws that can truly restrict it .
" The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are , at least in theory.I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law .
That 's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution , the judiciary ca n't do much about it .
The judiciary CAN strike it down if it 's unconstitutional.The executive is supposed to take care of * running the business * of the country .
The president can Veto , sure , but congress can overrule that.The executive can not just " do whatever it wants " unless congress and the judiciary let it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.
"The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law.
That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it.
The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.The executive is supposed to take care of *running the business* of the country.
The president can Veto, sure, but congress can overrule that.The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404251</id>
	<title>Re:The whole password part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245491760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is that you consider this to be a 'red state' issue, when the reality of it is that is far more likely of a thing for Democrats to request. Democrats like to be your nanny, so they want that info. Republicans are far more likely to not care about that stuff, because it doesn't matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is that you consider this to be a 'red state ' issue , when the reality of it is that is far more likely of a thing for Democrats to request .
Democrats like to be your nanny , so they want that info .
Republicans are far more likely to not care about that stuff , because it does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is that you consider this to be a 'red state' issue, when the reality of it is that is far more likely of a thing for Democrats to request.
Democrats like to be your nanny, so they want that info.
Republicans are far more likely to not care about that stuff, because it doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359</id>
	<title>If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245494100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't worry about this. All this was designed to do was to allow a more thorough background check to be done for prospective candidates for government positions.</p><p>There was plenty of backlash when some of Obama's selections for cabinet posts were revealed to have a few skeletons in their closet. Unfortunately, because of people who are overly protective of privacy, it's practically impossible to do a thorough background check and find these skeletons early in the process.</p><p>Why would you be worried about a background check if you have nothing to hide? The excessive protection of privacy is doing more harm than good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't have anything to hide , you should n't worry about this .
All this was designed to do was to allow a more thorough background check to be done for prospective candidates for government positions.There was plenty of backlash when some of Obama 's selections for cabinet posts were revealed to have a few skeletons in their closet .
Unfortunately , because of people who are overly protective of privacy , it 's practically impossible to do a thorough background check and find these skeletons early in the process.Why would you be worried about a background check if you have nothing to hide ?
The excessive protection of privacy is doing more harm than good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't worry about this.
All this was designed to do was to allow a more thorough background check to be done for prospective candidates for government positions.There was plenty of backlash when some of Obama's selections for cabinet posts were revealed to have a few skeletons in their closet.
Unfortunately, because of people who are overly protective of privacy, it's practically impossible to do a thorough background check and find these skeletons early in the process.Why would you be worried about a background check if you have nothing to hide?
The excessive protection of privacy is doing more harm than good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411807</id>
	<title>Re:The whole password part...</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245608520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever catch your kid in the cookie jar?  Or maybe smoking behind the school?  Surprisingly, their reaction is pretty much the same -- "Sorry, didn't know it was bad...won't do it again, promise!"</p><p>Same thing here.  Oh, and incidentally, something that hasn't been raised yet for some unknown reason, is this:</p><p>How many of the top-level or already-employed people had their credentials listed on some form in some filing cabinet?  Do you think the mayor had their social life vetted?</p><p>Highly doubtful.</p><p>So if this IS the case, why did it apply only to new employment candidates...does one's social life then become exempt after being employed?  If so, does the information get destroyed upon after being hired?  If anyone noticed, on the form where candidates are required to provide their passwords, it said that the signer authorizes the city to use it's own records for investigation, which means that if you worked for them before (same area? different area?), they could use those records...so...chances are they would keep the passwords, just in case.</p><p>The other wonderful gem is that on the same form, it says that enough though you are permitted by law to request a copy of all data/information they have acquired about you, they won't ever release it to anyone...including you...makes sense, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever catch your kid in the cookie jar ?
Or maybe smoking behind the school ?
Surprisingly , their reaction is pretty much the same -- " Sorry , did n't know it was bad...wo n't do it again , promise !
" Same thing here .
Oh , and incidentally , something that has n't been raised yet for some unknown reason , is this : How many of the top-level or already-employed people had their credentials listed on some form in some filing cabinet ?
Do you think the mayor had their social life vetted ? Highly doubtful.So if this IS the case , why did it apply only to new employment candidates...does one 's social life then become exempt after being employed ?
If so , does the information get destroyed upon after being hired ?
If anyone noticed , on the form where candidates are required to provide their passwords , it said that the signer authorizes the city to use it 's own records for investigation , which means that if you worked for them before ( same area ?
different area ?
) , they could use those records...so...chances are they would keep the passwords , just in case.The other wonderful gem is that on the same form , it says that enough though you are permitted by law to request a copy of all data/information they have acquired about you , they wo n't ever release it to anyone...including you...makes sense , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever catch your kid in the cookie jar?
Or maybe smoking behind the school?
Surprisingly, their reaction is pretty much the same -- "Sorry, didn't know it was bad...won't do it again, promise!
"Same thing here.
Oh, and incidentally, something that hasn't been raised yet for some unknown reason, is this:How many of the top-level or already-employed people had their credentials listed on some form in some filing cabinet?
Do you think the mayor had their social life vetted?Highly doubtful.So if this IS the case, why did it apply only to new employment candidates...does one's social life then become exempt after being employed?
If so, does the information get destroyed upon after being hired?
If anyone noticed, on the form where candidates are required to provide their passwords, it said that the signer authorizes the city to use it's own records for investigation, which means that if you worked for them before (same area?
different area?
), they could use those records...so...chances are they would keep the passwords, just in case.The other wonderful gem is that on the same form, it says that enough though you are permitted by law to request a copy of all data/information they have acquired about you, they won't ever release it to anyone...including you...makes sense, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400869</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245502380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.</p></div><p>Passwords are passwords: designed to distinguish those who have the rights from those who don't. If you grant <i>anyone</i> else the right to modify your personal website (except of course those who maintain it under your supervision), you shouldn't be a politician.</p><p>Oh, and any information that gets into a buerocratic machine is public from a security point of view. <a href="http://www.google.hu/search?q=government+data+lost" title="google.hu">Take my word for it.</a> [google.hu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.Passwords are passwords : designed to distinguish those who have the rights from those who do n't .
If you grant anyone else the right to modify your personal website ( except of course those who maintain it under your supervision ) , you should n't be a politician.Oh , and any information that gets into a buerocratic machine is public from a security point of view .
Take my word for it .
[ google.hu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.Passwords are passwords: designed to distinguish those who have the rights from those who don't.
If you grant anyone else the right to modify your personal website (except of course those who maintain it under your supervision), you shouldn't be a politician.Oh, and any information that gets into a buerocratic machine is public from a security point of view.
Take my word for it.
[google.hu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400513</id>
	<title>Re:If you have nothing to hide...</title>
	<author>unlametheweak</author>
	<datestamp>1245496140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have nothing to hide...</p></div><p>Maybe if you posted with your name and address and some way of validating who you are instead of Trolling with an AC moniker then people will take you more seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have nothing to hide...Maybe if you posted with your name and address and some way of validating who you are instead of Trolling with an AC moniker then people will take you more seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have nothing to hide...Maybe if you posted with your name and address and some way of validating who you are instead of Trolling with an AC moniker then people will take you more seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411</id>
	<title>Change Password</title>
	<author>Rick Richardson</author>
	<datestamp>1245494580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Fill out form, including password.<br>2. Send it in<br>3. Change password</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Fill out form , including password.2 .
Send it in3 .
Change passwordSheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Fill out form, including password.2.
Send it in3.
Change passwordSheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400493</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1245495900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The reality is that most of the elected representatives and employed professionals were largely unaware of what was going on. This is just the typical act of a power mad 'perve' someone who lies to pry into other people's lives, get a sexual kick out of having that level of control over other peoples lives. </p><p> It would be really interesting to find out who put in that clause and thought it was suitable and who else knew about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that most of the elected representatives and employed professionals were largely unaware of what was going on .
This is just the typical act of a power mad 'perve ' someone who lies to pry into other people 's lives , get a sexual kick out of having that level of control over other peoples lives .
It would be really interesting to find out who put in that clause and thought it was suitable and who else knew about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The reality is that most of the elected representatives and employed professionals were largely unaware of what was going on.
This is just the typical act of a power mad 'perve' someone who lies to pry into other people's lives, get a sexual kick out of having that level of control over other peoples lives.
It would be really interesting to find out who put in that clause and thought it was suitable and who else knew about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411577</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It bodes perfectly.  Anyone is free to change their password at any time, which would render their precious pieces of paper worthless...actually, it turns them into a huge liability...because they have to protect those documents in perpetuity (or destroy them) in case any user has not changed a password.</p><p>Anyway, even if I was sheeple enough to provide correct passwords, they would be changed the second I was at the con of a trusted terminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It bodes perfectly .
Anyone is free to change their password at any time , which would render their precious pieces of paper worthless...actually , it turns them into a huge liability...because they have to protect those documents in perpetuity ( or destroy them ) in case any user has not changed a password.Anyway , even if I was sheeple enough to provide correct passwords , they would be changed the second I was at the con of a trusted terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It bodes perfectly.
Anyone is free to change their password at any time, which would render their precious pieces of paper worthless...actually, it turns them into a huge liability...because they have to protect those documents in perpetuity (or destroy them) in case any user has not changed a password.Anyway, even if I was sheeple enough to provide correct passwords, they would be changed the second I was at the con of a trusted terminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403259</id>
	<title>Re:I read the local news article</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1245525600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that guy Kukulski that the story quotes?  You can find his email address on the City of Bozeman website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that guy Kukulski that the story quotes ?
You can find his email address on the City of Bozeman website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that guy Kukulski that the story quotes?
You can find his email address on the City of Bozeman website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400705</id>
	<title>We've come a long way</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1245499080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least the Bozeman city officials had some idea about "how them internets work". When their bad judgement was pointed out to them, they took the right path instead of digging in their heels and making <a href="http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=127" title="centos.org">complete asses</a> [centos.org] of themselves</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the Bozeman city officials had some idea about " how them internets work " .
When their bad judgement was pointed out to them , they took the right path instead of digging in their heels and making complete asses [ centos.org ] of themselves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the Bozeman city officials had some idea about "how them internets work".
When their bad judgement was pointed out to them, they took the right path instead of digging in their heels and making complete asses [centos.org] of themselves</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</id>
	<title>Myths and History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.</p><p>One thing in defense of their actions:  I prefer to know when people need that access, compared to someone randomly searching through those things.  (tyvm Patriot Act)</p><p>While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it?  Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent.  In the future (say...  50 years from now), would it be law to allow or even require record requests from (larger) internet companies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.One thing in defense of their actions : I prefer to know when people need that access , compared to someone randomly searching through those things .
( tyvm Patriot Act ) While Bozeman 's government 's actions are n't kosher , can we really defend against it ?
Records are records , and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such , it 's not something you can completely prevent .
In the future ( say... 50 years from now ) , would it be law to allow or even require record requests from ( larger ) internet companies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.One thing in defense of their actions:  I prefer to know when people need that access, compared to someone randomly searching through those things.
(tyvm Patriot Act)While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it?
Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent.
In the future (say...  50 years from now), would it be law to allow or even require record requests from (larger) internet companies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402573</id>
	<title>Re:The whole password part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand how idiots like you get it in your heads that things like this are somehow a red state thing.  I live in Atlanta and travel quite extensively to the northeast, home to the bluest of the blue states.  I've never seen so much busy-body, nosiness anywhere else.  CCTV cameras everywhere, red-light cameras everywhere, in the south, people get into their friends' and neighbors' business, in the north, people think nothing of delving into the affairs of complete strangers.  I went to a post office in New York, as an example, and the clerks were behind bullet proof glass. I've been to at least a thousand post offices from coast to coast and I've never seen that anywhere. It was surreal.  When I went to drop off my package, I had to get on the phone with the postmaster and explain why it had a Georgia return address but I was mailing it there.  He even trotted out the old 9/11 explanation in an attempt to explain the scrutiny.  Oh, and the stamp was printed with Endicia.  I've had an account for 4 years.  The security theater is absurd.  The blue states are in love with invading peoples' privacy.  Everytime I visit, I can't wait to get back to the south.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how idiots like you get it in your heads that things like this are somehow a red state thing .
I live in Atlanta and travel quite extensively to the northeast , home to the bluest of the blue states .
I 've never seen so much busy-body , nosiness anywhere else .
CCTV cameras everywhere , red-light cameras everywhere , in the south , people get into their friends ' and neighbors ' business , in the north , people think nothing of delving into the affairs of complete strangers .
I went to a post office in New York , as an example , and the clerks were behind bullet proof glass .
I 've been to at least a thousand post offices from coast to coast and I 've never seen that anywhere .
It was surreal .
When I went to drop off my package , I had to get on the phone with the postmaster and explain why it had a Georgia return address but I was mailing it there .
He even trotted out the old 9/11 explanation in an attempt to explain the scrutiny .
Oh , and the stamp was printed with Endicia .
I 've had an account for 4 years .
The security theater is absurd .
The blue states are in love with invading peoples ' privacy .
Everytime I visit , I ca n't wait to get back to the south .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how idiots like you get it in your heads that things like this are somehow a red state thing.
I live in Atlanta and travel quite extensively to the northeast, home to the bluest of the blue states.
I've never seen so much busy-body, nosiness anywhere else.
CCTV cameras everywhere, red-light cameras everywhere, in the south, people get into their friends' and neighbors' business, in the north, people think nothing of delving into the affairs of complete strangers.
I went to a post office in New York, as an example, and the clerks were behind bullet proof glass.
I've been to at least a thousand post offices from coast to coast and I've never seen that anywhere.
It was surreal.
When I went to drop off my package, I had to get on the phone with the postmaster and explain why it had a Georgia return address but I was mailing it there.
He even trotted out the old 9/11 explanation in an attempt to explain the scrutiny.
Oh, and the stamp was printed with Endicia.
I've had an account for 4 years.
The security theater is absurd.
The blue states are in love with invading peoples' privacy.
Everytime I visit, I can't wait to get back to the south.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400709</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1245499140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>1. Give employer passwords<br>2. Have an alibi while some friend posts  kiddieporn/whatever to one of the pages from an open wireless AP.<br>3. Sue them because nobody else had the account data so it must be them.<br>4. Profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason .
1. Give employer passwords2 .
Have an alibi while some friend posts kiddieporn/whatever to one of the pages from an open wireless AP.3 .
Sue them because nobody else had the account data so it must be them.4 .
Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason.
1. Give employer passwords2.
Have an alibi while some friend posts  kiddieporn/whatever to one of the pages from an open wireless AP.3.
Sue them because nobody else had the account data so it must be them.4.
Profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403567</id>
	<title>Re:Change Password</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1245528000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your sig, Sir, caused me to google pad thai. Had no idea what it was. Thought it might be some wonder drug or something along the line of "roofies". Nice quote. Of course if you give a woman a brick to the head, she will agree to anything you want, and it seems easier and cheaper that way to me, YMMV.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your sig , Sir , caused me to google pad thai .
Had no idea what it was .
Thought it might be some wonder drug or something along the line of " roofies " .
Nice quote .
Of course if you give a woman a brick to the head , she will agree to anything you want , and it seems easier and cheaper that way to me , YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your sig, Sir, caused me to google pad thai.
Had no idea what it was.
Thought it might be some wonder drug or something along the line of "roofies".
Nice quote.
Of course if you give a woman a brick to the head, she will agree to anything you want, and it seems easier and cheaper that way to me, YMMV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402821</id>
	<title>Re:Was this just a puplicity stunt . . . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> . . . well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.</p><p>"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>"See the lovely lakes . . . "</p><p>"Please leave your passwords at the door . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>"What out for the moose . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></div><p>Wait, I know this one.  Burma Shave?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
well , the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman , Montana .
" Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
" " See the lovely lakes .
. .
" " Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
" " What out for the moose .
. .
" Wait , I know this one .
Burma Shave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.
"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation .
. .
""See the lovely lakes .
. .
""Please leave your passwords at the door .
. .
""What out for the moose .
. .
"Wait, I know this one.
Burma Shave?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401121</id>
	<title>Re:Unprintable charecters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So yours is the password formerly known as Prince?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So yours is the password formerly known as Prince ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yours is the password formerly known as Prince?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400285</id>
	<title>First Trout!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245492840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and my password is... "i am a fish"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and my password is... " i am a fish "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and my password is... "i am a fish"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447</id>
	<title>Re:Myths and History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245495000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it? Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent</p></div><p>
This is nothing but the typical "if you don't have anything to hide, then you should be OK giving up your information" defense, slightly rephrased. Please read Daniel Solove's excellent evisceration of this argument here <a href="http://familyrights.us/bin/white\_papers-articles/nothing\_to\_hide.pdf" title="familyrights.us">in PDF</a> [familyrights.us], and stop accepting the blanket  "interests of national security" line without questioning on a case-by-case basis if it is reasonable.
</p><p>
Someone needs to create a privacy argument checklist for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. like the "why your spam solution won't work" checklist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Bozeman 's government 's actions are n't kosher , can we really defend against it ?
Records are records , and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such , it 's not something you can completely prevent This is nothing but the typical " if you do n't have anything to hide , then you should be OK giving up your information " defense , slightly rephrased .
Please read Daniel Solove 's excellent evisceration of this argument here in PDF [ familyrights.us ] , and stop accepting the blanket " interests of national security " line without questioning on a case-by-case basis if it is reasonable .
Someone needs to create a privacy argument checklist for / .
like the " why your spam solution wo n't work " checklist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it?
Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent
This is nothing but the typical "if you don't have anything to hide, then you should be OK giving up your information" defense, slightly rephrased.
Please read Daniel Solove's excellent evisceration of this argument here in PDF [familyrights.us], and stop accepting the blanket  "interests of national security" line without questioning on a case-by-case basis if it is reasonable.
Someone needs to create a privacy argument checklist for /.
like the "why your spam solution won't work" checklist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401047</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was my passwords that they now considered "property of the city". They could have them. As odds are I'll already have the fucking things changed.  Hell, I'd have them changed the day after I was hired since if they only needed them for "background checks" for employment, then they already have whatever they needed and have no further reason to be rummaging around through my shit.</p><p>Of course, I would have likely just dropped my application for the job upon hearing that it demanded passwords - and potentially checked with lawyers to see if a lawsuit had any chance of going anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was my passwords that they now considered " property of the city " .
They could have them .
As odds are I 'll already have the fucking things changed .
Hell , I 'd have them changed the day after I was hired since if they only needed them for " background checks " for employment , then they already have whatever they needed and have no further reason to be rummaging around through my shit.Of course , I would have likely just dropped my application for the job upon hearing that it demanded passwords - and potentially checked with lawyers to see if a lawsuit had any chance of going anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was my passwords that they now considered "property of the city".
They could have them.
As odds are I'll already have the fucking things changed.
Hell, I'd have them changed the day after I was hired since if they only needed them for "background checks" for employment, then they already have whatever they needed and have no further reason to be rummaging around through my shit.Of course, I would have likely just dropped my application for the job upon hearing that it demanded passwords - and potentially checked with lawyers to see if a lawsuit had any chance of going anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400647</id>
	<title>What a fantastic editing job</title>
	<author>uofitorn</author>
	<datestamp>1245497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed. Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!"</i> <br> <br>

Certainly, no one can mistakenly attribute that thought to Kukulski instead of the submitter!
<br> <br>
A simple "mcmoodle further contributes:...." would be too much effort though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world .
' I did n't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed .
Now I 'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through !
" Certainly , no one can mistakenly attribute that thought to Kukulski instead of the submitter !
A simple " mcmoodle further contributes : .... " would be too much effort though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.
' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed.
Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!
"  

Certainly, no one can mistakenly attribute that thought to Kukulski instead of the submitter!
A simple "mcmoodle further contributes:...." would be too much effort though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28419543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28412153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28429745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28408003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_0146252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28406407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28419543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28429745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28408003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28411601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28402903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28404271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28403895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28412153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28401333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_0146252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_0146252.28400643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
