<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_127229</id>
	<title>Researchers Find Gaps In Iranian Filtering</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245589740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29820456570" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"With all the turmoil and internet censorship in Iran making it difficult to get an accurate picture of what's going, security researchers have found a way to <a href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/06/a-deeper-look-at-the-iranian-firewall/">locate gaps in Iran's filtering by analyzing traffic exiting Iran</a>.  The short version is that SSH, torrents and Flash are high priorities for blocking, while game protocols like WoW and Xbox traffic are being ignored, even though they also allow communication.  Hopefully, this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely, even though <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/tatsumairanupdate/">average Iranians have worse things to worry about than internet censorship</a>, now that the reformists have been declared anti-Islamic by the Supreme Leader.  Given the circumstances, that declaration has been called 'basically a death sentence' for those who continue protesting."</i>
Reader CaroKann sends in a related story at the Washington Post about an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">analysis of the vote totals in the Iranian election</a> (similar to, but different from <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/2137203/Statistical-Suspicions-In-Irans-Election?from=rss">the one we discussed earlier</a>) in which the authors say the election results have a one in two-hundred chance of being legitimate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " With all the turmoil and internet censorship in Iran making it difficult to get an accurate picture of what 's going , security researchers have found a way to locate gaps in Iran 's filtering by analyzing traffic exiting Iran .
The short version is that SSH , torrents and Flash are high priorities for blocking , while game protocols like WoW and Xbox traffic are being ignored , even though they also allow communication .
Hopefully , this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely , even though average Iranians have worse things to worry about than internet censorship , now that the reformists have been declared anti-Islamic by the Supreme Leader .
Given the circumstances , that declaration has been called 'basically a death sentence ' for those who continue protesting .
" Reader CaroKann sends in a related story at the Washington Post about an analysis of the vote totals in the Iranian election ( similar to , but different from the one we discussed earlier ) in which the authors say the election results have a one in two-hundred chance of being legitimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With all the turmoil and internet censorship in Iran making it difficult to get an accurate picture of what's going, security researchers have found a way to locate gaps in Iran's filtering by analyzing traffic exiting Iran.
The short version is that SSH, torrents and Flash are high priorities for blocking, while game protocols like WoW and Xbox traffic are being ignored, even though they also allow communication.
Hopefully, this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely, even though average Iranians have worse things to worry about than internet censorship, now that the reformists have been declared anti-Islamic by the Supreme Leader.
Given the circumstances, that declaration has been called 'basically a death sentence' for those who continue protesting.
"
Reader CaroKann sends in a related story at the Washington Post about an analysis of the vote totals in the Iranian election (similar to, but different from the one we discussed earlier) in which the authors say the election results have a one in two-hundred chance of being legitimate.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410507</id>
	<title>Isn't this unauthorised access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this worse than what the US want McKinnon arrested for under terrorism charges?</p><p>Isn't this the same as the hacking the Chinese are accused of doing to the US computer systems?</p><p>If so, why is this OK when the others aren't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this worse than what the US want McKinnon arrested for under terrorism charges ? Is n't this the same as the hacking the Chinese are accused of doing to the US computer systems ? If so , why is this OK when the others are n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this worse than what the US want McKinnon arrested for under terrorism charges?Isn't this the same as the hacking the Chinese are accused of doing to the US computer systems?If so, why is this OK when the others aren't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410405</id>
	<title>Please take off tag NOMOREIRANPLEASE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont know about anyone else, but reading the tag of "NOMOREIRANPLEASE"

Even if you have mixed feelings about Iran and their relationship with the US / World, there is no reason to flag a topic with such a tag line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know about anyone else , but reading the tag of " NOMOREIRANPLEASE " Even if you have mixed feelings about Iran and their relationship with the US / World , there is no reason to flag a topic with such a tag line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know about anyone else, but reading the tag of "NOMOREIRANPLEASE"

Even if you have mixed feelings about Iran and their relationship with the US / World, there is no reason to flag a topic with such a tag line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410927</id>
	<title>Re:... and publicly announcing this</title>
	<author>bbernard</author>
	<datestamp>1245601140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered?"</p><p>It is in Iran's best interest to filter as little as possible.  If you're a devout WoW player, they'd rather let you spend time on that, being oblivious and happy, than risk you being pissed off that you can't play.  The most important thing for Iran's government to do is to try and make sure that no more people join the protests, and that those who have get discouraged by the hardship and return to their "comfortable" lives.  They want people to return to "normal" even if it is just a sham because they can control the people that way.  That requires people not paying attention to what the government is really doing, which requires giving people somewhere to "bury" their heads.  The Internet is GREAT for that.  I never found so many ways to waste my own time until I first opened that Mosaic browser one day...</p><p>What Iran's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective.  Yes, the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other, but there's no reliable sources of verifiable news.  No reliable death count.  No clear picture of what is happening.  Citizen journalism is great, but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do.  So foreign governments are limited in their response, and that response is even more limited in the audience within Iran that can see it.</p><p>Don't discount the ability to keep information away from the militia men as well.  The Iranian government is more dependent than ever on the blind faith of their security forces.  They must be fed the party line, and be made to swallow it.  You don't get that kind of obedience when those forces are allowed to think for themselves.  So you deny them the ability to gather data to make up their own minds.</p><p>So yes, Iran is not blocking all possible methods of communication, but they're effective enough that they still may pull this off.</p><p>Information is power, and the information required to make your own decisions is the ultimate expression of that power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered ?
" It is in Iran 's best interest to filter as little as possible .
If you 're a devout WoW player , they 'd rather let you spend time on that , being oblivious and happy , than risk you being pissed off that you ca n't play .
The most important thing for Iran 's government to do is to try and make sure that no more people join the protests , and that those who have get discouraged by the hardship and return to their " comfortable " lives .
They want people to return to " normal " even if it is just a sham because they can control the people that way .
That requires people not paying attention to what the government is really doing , which requires giving people somewhere to " bury " their heads .
The Internet is GREAT for that .
I never found so many ways to waste my own time until I first opened that Mosaic browser one day...What Iran 's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective .
Yes , the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other , but there 's no reliable sources of verifiable news .
No reliable death count .
No clear picture of what is happening .
Citizen journalism is great , but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do .
So foreign governments are limited in their response , and that response is even more limited in the audience within Iran that can see it.Do n't discount the ability to keep information away from the militia men as well .
The Iranian government is more dependent than ever on the blind faith of their security forces .
They must be fed the party line , and be made to swallow it .
You do n't get that kind of obedience when those forces are allowed to think for themselves .
So you deny them the ability to gather data to make up their own minds.So yes , Iran is not blocking all possible methods of communication , but they 're effective enough that they still may pull this off.Information is power , and the information required to make your own decisions is the ultimate expression of that power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered?
"It is in Iran's best interest to filter as little as possible.
If you're a devout WoW player, they'd rather let you spend time on that, being oblivious and happy, than risk you being pissed off that you can't play.
The most important thing for Iran's government to do is to try and make sure that no more people join the protests, and that those who have get discouraged by the hardship and return to their "comfortable" lives.
They want people to return to "normal" even if it is just a sham because they can control the people that way.
That requires people not paying attention to what the government is really doing, which requires giving people somewhere to "bury" their heads.
The Internet is GREAT for that.
I never found so many ways to waste my own time until I first opened that Mosaic browser one day...What Iran's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective.
Yes, the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other, but there's no reliable sources of verifiable news.
No reliable death count.
No clear picture of what is happening.
Citizen journalism is great, but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do.
So foreign governments are limited in their response, and that response is even more limited in the audience within Iran that can see it.Don't discount the ability to keep information away from the militia men as well.
The Iranian government is more dependent than ever on the blind faith of their security forces.
They must be fed the party line, and be made to swallow it.
You don't get that kind of obedience when those forces are allowed to think for themselves.
So you deny them the ability to gather data to make up their own minds.So yes, Iran is not blocking all possible methods of communication, but they're effective enough that they still may pull this off.Information is power, and the information required to make your own decisions is the ultimate expression of that power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109</id>
	<title>... and publicly announcing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and publicly announcing this will help these gaps to stay unfiltered?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412165</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really, honestly believe that the largest, most powerful intelligence agency in the world couldn't organize a nation-wide rebellion if they wanted to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really , honestly believe that the largest , most powerful intelligence agency in the world could n't organize a nation-wide rebellion if they wanted to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really, honestly believe that the largest, most powerful intelligence agency in the world couldn't organize a nation-wide rebellion if they wanted to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410089</id>
	<title>Prot or protocol blocking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so does this mean i can use the port number of xboxlive and wow to send and receive data?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so does this mean i can use the port number of xboxlive and wow to send and receive data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so does this mean i can use the port number of xboxlive and wow to send and receive data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>EQ</author>
	<datestamp>1245604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We <strong>do</strong> need <strong>more</strong> coverage of Iran, especially from a technical standpoint.  First of all, it will help us know how to best help those putting their lives on the line for liberty against a totalitarian force.  Secondly, it will give those of use interested in the tech side ("news for <em>Nerds</em>", remember?) insight into how these can best be used to avoid censorship and repression, no matter what the source.  Its a good enough rationale to provide extensive coverage here daily -- after all, how many times do you get to see a live, full scale example of censors versus leakers?<br>
<br>
As for why the tag <em>nomoreiran</em> Its pretty simple.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. used to be very "techno-libertarian" in slant, way back when.  It is not such a place anymore.<br>
<br>
Rob ("Taco") and cronies (<em>e.g. kdawson</em>, whom I view as being irredeemably as slanted as Rush Limbaugh, just in opposite directions) have become more collectivist and pointedly anti-conservative at the expense of libertarianism (mainly by being unthinkingly knee-jerk anti-Bush, instead of well reasoned critics). Thus any political action that does not actively help their flavor of collectivism/statism or something that casts a negative light on their political favorites (i.e. Obama, liberals, socialists, etc) will receive less attention, editorially speaking.  Its their own personal bias, as reflected in editorial choices of what to cover and what to try to ignore.  I cannot blame them much -- the slashdot userbase has become filled with unreasoning collectivist (non-technical) poseurs, so Taco and company are just following their audience (and the money). Sadly, this means that the epithet <em>SlashKos</em>isn't all that far from the mark anymore.<br>
<br>
Its not a troll or flamebait to say so (take a moment to read the actual definitions before you politically mod this post).  Its just my observation.  One needs a heavy set of "bogus-ness/BS" filters to get any real data out of most articles here anymore, and in general I tend to avoid most "YRO" category articles because they are simply editorials with no pretense of actually presenting any logic examination (and a <em>proper</em> debunking) of opposing views. I do value the book reviews and some of the limited Tech news that manages to make it past the slant here.  And some of the humor here is still pretty good.<br>
<br>
Still, it would be nice to see more information/articles on Slashdot about how tech is being used to fight what is probably one of the most evil regimes on the planet - and the religious and state mechanisms it uses to maintain its tyranny.  Those "resistance" methods might come in hand in other places as well, like China, Britain and the USA, sooner than we think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do need more coverage of Iran , especially from a technical standpoint .
First of all , it will help us know how to best help those putting their lives on the line for liberty against a totalitarian force .
Secondly , it will give those of use interested in the tech side ( " news for Nerds " , remember ?
) insight into how these can best be used to avoid censorship and repression , no matter what the source .
Its a good enough rationale to provide extensive coverage here daily -- after all , how many times do you get to see a live , full scale example of censors versus leakers ?
As for why the tag nomoreiran Its pretty simple .
/. used to be very " techno-libertarian " in slant , way back when .
It is not such a place anymore .
Rob ( " Taco " ) and cronies ( e.g .
kdawson , whom I view as being irredeemably as slanted as Rush Limbaugh , just in opposite directions ) have become more collectivist and pointedly anti-conservative at the expense of libertarianism ( mainly by being unthinkingly knee-jerk anti-Bush , instead of well reasoned critics ) .
Thus any political action that does not actively help their flavor of collectivism/statism or something that casts a negative light on their political favorites ( i.e .
Obama , liberals , socialists , etc ) will receive less attention , editorially speaking .
Its their own personal bias , as reflected in editorial choices of what to cover and what to try to ignore .
I can not blame them much -- the slashdot userbase has become filled with unreasoning collectivist ( non-technical ) poseurs , so Taco and company are just following their audience ( and the money ) .
Sadly , this means that the epithet SlashKosis n't all that far from the mark anymore .
Its not a troll or flamebait to say so ( take a moment to read the actual definitions before you politically mod this post ) .
Its just my observation .
One needs a heavy set of " bogus-ness/BS " filters to get any real data out of most articles here anymore , and in general I tend to avoid most " YRO " category articles because they are simply editorials with no pretense of actually presenting any logic examination ( and a proper debunking ) of opposing views .
I do value the book reviews and some of the limited Tech news that manages to make it past the slant here .
And some of the humor here is still pretty good .
Still , it would be nice to see more information/articles on Slashdot about how tech is being used to fight what is probably one of the most evil regimes on the planet - and the religious and state mechanisms it uses to maintain its tyranny .
Those " resistance " methods might come in hand in other places as well , like China , Britain and the USA , sooner than we think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do need more coverage of Iran, especially from a technical standpoint.
First of all, it will help us know how to best help those putting their lives on the line for liberty against a totalitarian force.
Secondly, it will give those of use interested in the tech side ("news for Nerds", remember?
) insight into how these can best be used to avoid censorship and repression, no matter what the source.
Its a good enough rationale to provide extensive coverage here daily -- after all, how many times do you get to see a live, full scale example of censors versus leakers?
As for why the tag nomoreiran Its pretty simple.
/. used to be very "techno-libertarian" in slant, way back when.
It is not such a place anymore.
Rob ("Taco") and cronies (e.g.
kdawson, whom I view as being irredeemably as slanted as Rush Limbaugh, just in opposite directions) have become more collectivist and pointedly anti-conservative at the expense of libertarianism (mainly by being unthinkingly knee-jerk anti-Bush, instead of well reasoned critics).
Thus any political action that does not actively help their flavor of collectivism/statism or something that casts a negative light on their political favorites (i.e.
Obama, liberals, socialists, etc) will receive less attention, editorially speaking.
Its their own personal bias, as reflected in editorial choices of what to cover and what to try to ignore.
I cannot blame them much -- the slashdot userbase has become filled with unreasoning collectivist (non-technical) poseurs, so Taco and company are just following their audience (and the money).
Sadly, this means that the epithet SlashKosisn't all that far from the mark anymore.
Its not a troll or flamebait to say so (take a moment to read the actual definitions before you politically mod this post).
Its just my observation.
One needs a heavy set of "bogus-ness/BS" filters to get any real data out of most articles here anymore, and in general I tend to avoid most "YRO" category articles because they are simply editorials with no pretense of actually presenting any logic examination (and a proper debunking) of opposing views.
I do value the book reviews and some of the limited Tech news that manages to make it past the slant here.
And some of the humor here is still pretty good.
Still, it would be nice to see more information/articles on Slashdot about how tech is being used to fight what is probably one of the most evil regimes on the planet - and the religious and state mechanisms it uses to maintain its tyranny.
Those "resistance" methods might come in hand in other places as well, like China, Britain and the USA, sooner than we think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423217</id>
	<title>Re:... and publicly announcing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What Iran's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective.  Yes, the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other, but there's no reliable sources of verifiable news.  No reliable death count.  No clear picture of what is happening.  Citizen journalism is great, but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do.</p></div><p>I don't think these things are the result of internet filtering.  Would the "no clear picture" be a result of forbidding foreign journalists from entering the streets?  Don't you agree that a reliable death count would actually require reliable journalists to go to hospitals to count bodies (and require that bodies not "disappear" from hospitals, that people not get arrested at hospitals for disturbing the peace, etc)?</p><p>On the other hand, you agree the protestors are getting together, coordinating efforts, and sharing their stories with eachother and the world.</p><p>So the internet filtration is <b>ineffective</b>.  The disinformation campaign and restrictive police state situation is effective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Iran 's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective .
Yes , the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other , but there 's no reliable sources of verifiable news .
No reliable death count .
No clear picture of what is happening .
Citizen journalism is great , but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do.I do n't think these things are the result of internet filtering .
Would the " no clear picture " be a result of forbidding foreign journalists from entering the streets ?
Do n't you agree that a reliable death count would actually require reliable journalists to go to hospitals to count bodies ( and require that bodies not " disappear " from hospitals , that people not get arrested at hospitals for disturbing the peace , etc ) ? On the other hand , you agree the protestors are getting together , coordinating efforts , and sharing their stories with eachother and the world.So the internet filtration is ineffective .
The disinformation campaign and restrictive police state situation is effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Iran's government has been doing with regard to filtering has been disturbingly effective.
Yes, the protesters are getting together and communicating with each other, but there's no reliable sources of verifiable news.
No reliable death count.
No clear picture of what is happening.
Citizen journalism is great, but it pales in comparison with what real news-gathering resources can do.I don't think these things are the result of internet filtering.
Would the "no clear picture" be a result of forbidding foreign journalists from entering the streets?
Don't you agree that a reliable death count would actually require reliable journalists to go to hospitals to count bodies (and require that bodies not "disappear" from hospitals, that people not get arrested at hospitals for disturbing the peace, etc)?On the other hand, you agree the protestors are getting together, coordinating efforts, and sharing their stories with eachother and the world.So the internet filtration is ineffective.
The disinformation campaign and restrictive police state situation is effective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410549</id>
	<title>Iran Filtering not that weak you think!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi,
I'm an Iranian and i've been tortured by the internet filtering here for a few years but the filtering after election is really terrible, we can't use the old ssh tunneling methods any more, in fact it seems that all encrypted packages are being dropped so we can't connect to our servers out side of Iran any more so we can't use another method for passing through the filtering, however today i've used a browser based ssh client to connect to my VPS in Germany and installed a proxy using squid but the interesting thing is that we i try to connect to facebook (or any other filtered website) the firewall changes my request to the famous "This site is blocked" page!
These things was just examples of methods we tried to pass the filtering, anyway we are using other method to pass the filtering (which i will not mention here for safety!) but we have serious problems connecting to our servers over ssh, i'm going to test the ssh over http method but i know that this will be a temporary method!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm an Iranian and i 've been tortured by the internet filtering here for a few years but the filtering after election is really terrible , we ca n't use the old ssh tunneling methods any more , in fact it seems that all encrypted packages are being dropped so we ca n't connect to our servers out side of Iran any more so we ca n't use another method for passing through the filtering , however today i 've used a browser based ssh client to connect to my VPS in Germany and installed a proxy using squid but the interesting thing is that we i try to connect to facebook ( or any other filtered website ) the firewall changes my request to the famous " This site is blocked " page !
These things was just examples of methods we tried to pass the filtering , anyway we are using other method to pass the filtering ( which i will not mention here for safety !
) but we have serious problems connecting to our servers over ssh , i 'm going to test the ssh over http method but i know that this will be a temporary method ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,
I'm an Iranian and i've been tortured by the internet filtering here for a few years but the filtering after election is really terrible, we can't use the old ssh tunneling methods any more, in fact it seems that all encrypted packages are being dropped so we can't connect to our servers out side of Iran any more so we can't use another method for passing through the filtering, however today i've used a browser based ssh client to connect to my VPS in Germany and installed a proxy using squid but the interesting thing is that we i try to connect to facebook (or any other filtered website) the firewall changes my request to the famous "This site is blocked" page!
These things was just examples of methods we tried to pass the filtering, anyway we are using other method to pass the filtering (which i will not mention here for safety!
) but we have serious problems connecting to our servers over ssh, i'm going to test the ssh over http method but i know that this will be a temporary method!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410511</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The protests we have in the US every year would seem to contradict your theory.  The most recent being the tea parties, then there are the G8 protests, NAFTA protests, the protests at the presidential political conventions...  Sorry, but the US has protests all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The protests we have in the US every year would seem to contradict your theory .
The most recent being the tea parties , then there are the G8 protests , NAFTA protests , the protests at the presidential political conventions... Sorry , but the US has protests all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The protests we have in the US every year would seem to contradict your theory.
The most recent being the tea parties, then there are the G8 protests, NAFTA protests, the protests at the presidential political conventions...  Sorry, but the US has protests all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415917</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245600480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where were all these people when bush cheated? this media coverage is bull and twitter isn't credible, anyone on the inside.. US and Israel can conjure anything up and display it through twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where were all these people when bush cheated ?
this media coverage is bull and twitter is n't credible , anyone on the inside.. US and Israel can conjure anything up and display it through twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where were all these people when bush cheated?
this media coverage is bull and twitter isn't credible, anyone on the inside.. US and Israel can conjure anything up and display it through twitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411617</id>
	<title>You Fail I(t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we need to addrees this eXploitation, numbers. The loss as the premiere backward and said you loved that Conglomerate in the</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to addrees this eXploitation , numbers .
The loss as the premiere backward and said you loved that Conglomerate in the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to addrees this eXploitation, numbers.
The loss as the premiere backward and said you loved that Conglomerate in the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413831</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245580920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net. </i></p><p>What I've been trying to wrap my mind around is how hard is that for them and when will it happen?   If the unrest continues and revolution starts to look like a real possibility,  I can't imagine that they wouldn't attempt to unplug the whole nation, if they can.    In some nations,  it's fairly easy, in others it might be nearly impossible, I suspect it's easier rather than harder in Iran.</p><p>Dubai, Iraq, Turkey, and some other nations could potentially broadcast mobile service in to Iran from their countries.    The distances are great enough that it wouldn't be 3G like speeds but texts and other lower bandwidth connections could be enough to at least let the world know what's happening and if they had some outside organization and help then they could tell Iranians what's going on too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net .
What I 've been trying to wrap my mind around is how hard is that for them and when will it happen ?
If the unrest continues and revolution starts to look like a real possibility , I ca n't imagine that they would n't attempt to unplug the whole nation , if they can .
In some nations , it 's fairly easy , in others it might be nearly impossible , I suspect it 's easier rather than harder in Iran.Dubai , Iraq , Turkey , and some other nations could potentially broadcast mobile service in to Iran from their countries .
The distances are great enough that it would n't be 3G like speeds but texts and other lower bandwidth connections could be enough to at least let the world know what 's happening and if they had some outside organization and help then they could tell Iranians what 's going on too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net.
What I've been trying to wrap my mind around is how hard is that for them and when will it happen?
If the unrest continues and revolution starts to look like a real possibility,  I can't imagine that they wouldn't attempt to unplug the whole nation, if they can.
In some nations,  it's fairly easy, in others it might be nearly impossible, I suspect it's easier rather than harder in Iran.Dubai, Iraq, Turkey, and some other nations could potentially broadcast mobile service in to Iran from their countries.
The distances are great enough that it wouldn't be 3G like speeds but texts and other lower bandwidth connections could be enough to at least let the world know what's happening and if they had some outside organization and help then they could tell Iranians what's going on too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413213</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245576120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bay of pigs rings a bell?? Or all those other nice elections in south america? The CIA trained the art of elections manipulation there for the past 30+ years... now they are applying this to Iran, hope it's not the CIA and really people wanting to be heard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bay of pigs rings a bell ? ?
Or all those other nice elections in south america ?
The CIA trained the art of elections manipulation there for the past 30 + years... now they are applying this to Iran , hope it 's not the CIA and really people wanting to be heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bay of pigs rings a bell??
Or all those other nice elections in south america?
The CIA trained the art of elections manipulation there for the past 30+ years... now they are applying this to Iran, hope it's not the CIA and really people wanting to be heard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137</id>
	<title>USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they tried with war. Now they are trying to bring down the government. The oposition is a puppet of USA. The elections were valid. The protests are initiated by CIA and the news coverage is unfair. And, besides, we don't really care what happens to Iran and whether the USA appointed president will finally manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country. Really, if we cared we'd visit CNN.com or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they tried with war .
Now they are trying to bring down the government .
The oposition is a puppet of USA .
The elections were valid .
The protests are initiated by CIA and the news coverage is unfair .
And , besides , we do n't really care what happens to Iran and whether the USA appointed president will finally manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country .
Really , if we cared we 'd visit CNN.com or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they tried with war.
Now they are trying to bring down the government.
The oposition is a puppet of USA.
The elections were valid.
The protests are initiated by CIA and the news coverage is unfair.
And, besides, we don't really care what happens to Iran and whether the USA appointed president will finally manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country.
Really, if we cared we'd visit CNN.com or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415547</id>
	<title>Re:Start running proxies on the WoW ports...</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1245596940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to twitter they did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to twitter they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to twitter they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410173</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>batrick</author>
	<datestamp>1245594780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... because this is an example of how censorship (of the Internet) can have dramatic effects on rebellion, revolution, and government? Nerds everywhere should be closely watching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... because this is an example of how censorship ( of the Internet ) can have dramatic effects on rebellion , revolution , and government ?
Nerds everywhere should be closely watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because this is an example of how censorship (of the Internet) can have dramatic effects on rebellion, revolution, and government?
Nerds everywhere should be closely watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412903</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a wonderful troll. So, according to you, only those who are against the evils "Obama, liberals, socialists" - that is, the proud U.S. Republicans and conservatives - support the Iranian democratic revolution, and promote it on the Net?</p><p>It's also interesting how you lump together "technical" and "libertarian", and then go on together and say that "collectivist" means "non-technical".</p><p>If that post don't deserve Troll and/or Flamebait, then I don't know what does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a wonderful troll .
So , according to you , only those who are against the evils " Obama , liberals , socialists " - that is , the proud U.S. Republicans and conservatives - support the Iranian democratic revolution , and promote it on the Net ? It 's also interesting how you lump together " technical " and " libertarian " , and then go on together and say that " collectivist " means " non-technical " .If that post do n't deserve Troll and/or Flamebait , then I do n't know what does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a wonderful troll.
So, according to you, only those who are against the evils "Obama, liberals, socialists" - that is, the proud U.S. Republicans and conservatives - support the Iranian democratic revolution, and promote it on the Net?It's also interesting how you lump together "technical" and "libertarian", and then go on together and say that "collectivist" means "non-technical".If that post don't deserve Troll and/or Flamebait, then I don't know what does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412749</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about I?DRILL</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?</p></div></blockquote><p>
We will care as long as we're too stupid to develop <b>all</b> of our own energy sources and remain frighteningly dependent on the rest of the world.<br> <br>
DRILL HERE - DRILL NOW!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I keep asking myself , why should we care at all ?
We will care as long as we 're too stupid to develop all of our own energy sources and remain frighteningly dependent on the rest of the world .
DRILL HERE - DRILL NOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?
We will care as long as we're too stupid to develop all of our own energy sources and remain frighteningly dependent on the rest of the world.
DRILL HERE - DRILL NOW!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410117</id>
	<title>Good job</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1245594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the censors know what they are missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the censors know what they are missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the censors know what they are missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410363</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, maybe because some of us care about other people, and their rights, no matter where they are in the world. Maybe not everyone's a cynic all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , maybe because some of us care about other people , and their rights , no matter where they are in the world .
Maybe not everyone 's a cynic all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, maybe because some of us care about other people, and their rights, no matter where they are in the world.
Maybe not everyone's a cynic all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415359</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country...</p></div><p>Absolutely not! The last thing they need is to replace one clown with another.</p><p>What they need is a king!</p><p>A Burger King!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country...Absolutely not !
The last thing they need is to replace one clown with another.What they need is a king ! A Burger King !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...manage to take over Iran and make it McDonalds country...Absolutely not!
The last thing they need is to replace one clown with another.What they need is a king!A Burger King!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410695</id>
	<title>best way to censor the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>post a news article on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. such that it draws traffic into your network</p><p>voila! instant censorship</p><p>all hale the supreme leader CowboyNeal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>post a news article on / .
such that it draws traffic into your networkvoila !
instant censorshipall hale the supreme leader CowboyNeal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>post a news article on /.
such that it draws traffic into your networkvoila!
instant censorshipall hale the supreme leader CowboyNeal!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411307</id>
	<title>US elections year 2000</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1245604620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it both sad and disheartening that the US is more up-in-arms about these election results in a foreign land, than they were about our own EXTREMELY questionable election results here in the US in the year 2000.  As time goes on we find more and more discrepancies in those results, and nobody seems to gives a damn.  A 1 in 200 chance of the election results in Iran seems far, far more likely than what happened here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it both sad and disheartening that the US is more up-in-arms about these election results in a foreign land , than they were about our own EXTREMELY questionable election results here in the US in the year 2000 .
As time goes on we find more and more discrepancies in those results , and nobody seems to gives a damn .
A 1 in 200 chance of the election results in Iran seems far , far more likely than what happened here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it both sad and disheartening that the US is more up-in-arms about these election results in a foreign land, than they were about our own EXTREMELY questionable election results here in the US in the year 2000.
As time goes on we find more and more discrepancies in those results, and nobody seems to gives a damn.
A 1 in 200 chance of the election results in Iran seems far, far more likely than what happened here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410485</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>deviceb</author>
	<datestamp>1245597720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, until you are left alone.
<br>
Neda was shot in the heart in front of her father for protesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , until you are left alone .
Neda was shot in the heart in front of her father for protesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, until you are left alone.
Neda was shot in the heart in front of her father for protesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really, honestly believe the CIA is competent enough to organize a nation-wide rebellion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really , honestly believe the CIA is competent enough to organize a nation-wide rebellion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really, honestly believe the CIA is competent enough to organize a nation-wide rebellion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</id>
	<title>Internet filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Internet is The Internet.<br> <br>Information will get from anywhere to anywhere unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net. There are as many ways to hide "communications" as there are protocols and servers out there, and no one can do a bloody thing about it. Even a "whitelist" style system would have holes in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is The Internet .
Information will get from anywhere to anywhere unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net .
There are as many ways to hide " communications " as there are protocols and servers out there , and no one can do a bloody thing about it .
Even a " whitelist " style system would have holes in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is The Internet.
Information will get from anywhere to anywhere unless Iran completely disconnects itself from the rest of the 'net.
There are as many ways to hide "communications" as there are protocols and servers out there, and no one can do a bloody thing about it.
Even a "whitelist" style system would have holes in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412305</id>
	<title>Re:Please take off tag NOMOREIRANPLEASE</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need people to start tagging things "nomoreriaaplease", "nomorepiratepartyplease" or even "nomorelinuxplease"? All those have been around a lot longer, let us have something fresh to discuss for a short period of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need people to start tagging things " nomoreriaaplease " , " nomorepiratepartyplease " or even " nomorelinuxplease " ?
All those have been around a lot longer , let us have something fresh to discuss for a short period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need people to start tagging things "nomoreriaaplease", "nomorepiratepartyplease" or even "nomorelinuxplease"?
All those have been around a lot longer, let us have something fresh to discuss for a short period of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412289</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how true all of this "Internet is unstoppable" talk really is.  I suspect the reason why communication still works is because the country would take too much of an economic hit if businesses had no way of communicating internationally.  Communication is as essential to conduct commerce in many sectors as electricity.</p><p>Traditionally most Internet traffic has been routed through telecoms with the general trend in the US anyway for smaller ISPs to die as the likes of comcast et al roll in you end up with a situation where turning off a handfull of giants can effectivly block most IP based communications.  In the middle east ISPs are typically licensed by the government and require explicit authorization to exist.</p><p>NEMO like peer to peer messaging via phones bluetooth or wifi radios is possible but ineffecient.. There are no reasonably designed widely adopted implementations in existance.</p><p>If the network is out for long enough people will no doubt start dusting off their old TNCs and makeshift radio towers and the result will be that anyone who really wanted to could talk again... but initially if the government really wanted to stop all network communication you would have few options (sneaker net or finding someone with radio gear)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how true all of this " Internet is unstoppable " talk really is .
I suspect the reason why communication still works is because the country would take too much of an economic hit if businesses had no way of communicating internationally .
Communication is as essential to conduct commerce in many sectors as electricity.Traditionally most Internet traffic has been routed through telecoms with the general trend in the US anyway for smaller ISPs to die as the likes of comcast et al roll in you end up with a situation where turning off a handfull of giants can effectivly block most IP based communications .
In the middle east ISPs are typically licensed by the government and require explicit authorization to exist.NEMO like peer to peer messaging via phones bluetooth or wifi radios is possible but ineffecient.. There are no reasonably designed widely adopted implementations in existance.If the network is out for long enough people will no doubt start dusting off their old TNCs and makeshift radio towers and the result will be that anyone who really wanted to could talk again... but initially if the government really wanted to stop all network communication you would have few options ( sneaker net or finding someone with radio gear )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how true all of this "Internet is unstoppable" talk really is.
I suspect the reason why communication still works is because the country would take too much of an economic hit if businesses had no way of communicating internationally.
Communication is as essential to conduct commerce in many sectors as electricity.Traditionally most Internet traffic has been routed through telecoms with the general trend in the US anyway for smaller ISPs to die as the likes of comcast et al roll in you end up with a situation where turning off a handfull of giants can effectivly block most IP based communications.
In the middle east ISPs are typically licensed by the government and require explicit authorization to exist.NEMO like peer to peer messaging via phones bluetooth or wifi radios is possible but ineffecient.. There are no reasonably designed widely adopted implementations in existance.If the network is out for long enough people will no doubt start dusting off their old TNCs and makeshift radio towers and the result will be that anyone who really wanted to could talk again... but initially if the government really wanted to stop all network communication you would have few options (sneaker net or finding someone with radio gear)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410953</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>uniquegeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0735!<br>Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips. A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?)"</p><p>You fail at illustrating the proper point.  What a bastardization of using statistics.  The third sentence is ridiculous, that's not the point that the data indicates.</p><p>On a positive note, you'd make a good politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you know something about a binomial random variable ( which is what we just sampled from ) , you know that this is ( 100 choose 48 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) = .0735 ! Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips .
A 1 in 20 chance that , by their metrics , this was a fair set of coin flips ( see where the logical incongruity happens ?
) " You fail at illustrating the proper point .
What a bastardization of using statistics .
The third sentence is ridiculous , that 's not the point that the data indicates.On a positive note , you 'd make a good politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) = .0735!Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips.
A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?
)"You fail at illustrating the proper point.
What a bastardization of using statistics.
The third sentence is ridiculous, that's not the point that the data indicates.On a positive note, you'd make a good politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414979</id>
	<title>IP dancing</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1245590940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP over WOW dance movements....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP over WOW dance movements... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP over WOW dance movements....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410681</id>
	<title>Moreiranplease</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what? This should be a tag on every story if we really mean it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what ?
This should be a tag on every story if we really mean it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what?
This should be a tag on every story if we really mean it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410709</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, bloody is about the ONLY way they can stop things.<br><br>Now that the SL has declared the protestors anti-islamic, the police probably have the duty to KILL ON SIGHT anyone found protesting.<br><br>Which is really sad.  That means it's literally do or die for any revolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , bloody is about the ONLY way they can stop things.Now that the SL has declared the protestors anti-islamic , the police probably have the duty to KILL ON SIGHT anyone found protesting.Which is really sad .
That means it 's literally do or die for any revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, bloody is about the ONLY way they can stop things.Now that the SL has declared the protestors anti-islamic, the police probably have the duty to KILL ON SIGHT anyone found protesting.Which is really sad.
That means it's literally do or die for any revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410581</id>
	<title>Some things are better left unsaid</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1245598320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Hopefully, this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely"</i> <p>

On the contrary, now that it's public information this "security gap" has probably already been dealt with by the authorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hopefully , this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely " On the contrary , now that it 's public information this " security gap " has probably already been dealt with by the authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hopefully, this data will help people think of new ways to bypass filtering and speak freely" 

On the contrary, now that it's public information this "security gap" has probably already been dealt with by the authorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>WDot</author>
	<datestamp>1245596280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I respect the Iranians who protest, what's going on in Iran is a big example of why the US may be hesitant to protest:  protesting is SCARY.  One of the most watched videos on Reddit recently is a gruesome video of an Iranian girl being shot to death for protesting.  I think a lot of people in the US just want to be left alone by the government.  Is protesting the government worth risking your neck or your job?  What about your spouse and children?  It's sad, but that seems to be the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I respect the Iranians who protest , what 's going on in Iran is a big example of why the US may be hesitant to protest : protesting is SCARY .
One of the most watched videos on Reddit recently is a gruesome video of an Iranian girl being shot to death for protesting .
I think a lot of people in the US just want to be left alone by the government .
Is protesting the government worth risking your neck or your job ?
What about your spouse and children ?
It 's sad , but that seems to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I respect the Iranians who protest, what's going on in Iran is a big example of why the US may be hesitant to protest:  protesting is SCARY.
One of the most watched videos on Reddit recently is a gruesome video of an Iranian girl being shot to death for protesting.
I think a lot of people in the US just want to be left alone by the government.
Is protesting the government worth risking your neck or your job?
What about your spouse and children?
It's sad, but that seems to be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411305</id>
	<title>WOW port open</title>
	<author>univalue</author>
	<datestamp>1245604620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee just setup sshd to run on the wow port.  What port number or numbers are those?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee just setup sshd to run on the wow port .
What port number or numbers are those ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee just setup sshd to run on the wow port.
What port number or numbers are those?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414121</id>
	<title>wogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245583260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>asslifter nignogs<br>sand niggers dogwogs<br>camel fuckers<br>goatsuckers<br>Eyeraq Eyeran.</p><p>Towelhead, Taliban<br>Pakistan Afghanistan,<br>Can't write, can't read<br>Sub-hu-man.</p><p>They're all a bunch of vermin<br>They'll be wearing turbans<br>Till the world stops turnin'</p><p>They're medieval bastards<br>Till we go to orbit<br>And they're fucking blasted.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>asslifter nignogssand niggers dogwogscamel fuckersgoatsuckersEyeraq Eyeran.Towelhead , TalibanPakistan Afghanistan,Ca n't write , ca n't readSub-hu-man.They 're all a bunch of verminThey 'll be wearing turbansTill the world stops turnin'They 're medieval bastardsTill we go to orbitAnd they 're fucking blasted .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>asslifter nignogssand niggers dogwogscamel fuckersgoatsuckersEyeraq Eyeran.Towelhead, TalibanPakistan Afghanistan,Can't write, can't readSub-hu-man.They're all a bunch of verminThey'll be wearing turbansTill the world stops turnin'They're medieval bastardsTill we go to orbitAnd they're fucking blasted.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413973</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Curtman</author>
	<datestamp>1245582000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power, I already know.)  But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because the U.S. put the the Ayatollah into power, and tried to prevent the revolution which overthrew the dictator that it saw as being friendly.  But you already know that.  And because the U.S. gave Saddam support while he used chemical warfare against Iranian civilians.<br> <br>

Those aren't the actions of a country that is fit to be world police.  Those are the actions of a sociopath.  Especially if you see no reason to care at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power , I already know .
) But I keep asking myself , why should we care at all ?
Because the U.S. put the the Ayatollah into power , and tried to prevent the revolution which overthrew the dictator that it saw as being friendly .
But you already know that .
And because the U.S. gave Saddam support while he used chemical warfare against Iranian civilians .
Those are n't the actions of a country that is fit to be world police .
Those are the actions of a sociopath .
Especially if you see no reason to care at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power, I already know.
)  But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?
Because the U.S. put the the Ayatollah into power, and tried to prevent the revolution which overthrew the dictator that it saw as being friendly.
But you already know that.
And because the U.S. gave Saddam support while he used chemical warfare against Iranian civilians.
Those aren't the actions of a country that is fit to be world police.
Those are the actions of a sociopath.
Especially if you see no reason to care at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410577</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1245598320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's garbage in other ways.</p><p>the model they are using is some sort of benford's law like thing.  But this assumes that the distribution should be random to begin with.  not likely.  Moreover the kind of manipulations of concern, like shifting votes, have the same signature as legal manipulations such as bus loads of church folks showing up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's garbage in other ways.the model they are using is some sort of benford 's law like thing .
But this assumes that the distribution should be random to begin with .
not likely .
Moreover the kind of manipulations of concern , like shifting votes , have the same signature as legal manipulations such as bus loads of church folks showing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's garbage in other ways.the model they are using is some sort of benford's law like thing.
But this assumes that the distribution should be random to begin with.
not likely.
Moreover the kind of manipulations of concern, like shifting votes, have the same signature as legal manipulations such as bus loads of church folks showing up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411495</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud, the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant. At the same time, the prior is most definitely impossible to know. These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless. *THAT* was my point.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>
If your statement is true then Bayesian statistics is always completely meaningless without informative priors, yet most of Bayesian analysis is done without informative priors and works quite well thank you very much.
<br> <br>
The obvious, but unstated, assumption in the article is that they are using an uninformative prior which gives equal weight to fraud and no fraud.    You are free to quibble over their use of this prior.  For example if you thought (before seeing their data) there was only one chance in 10,000 chance that there would be fraud then even given their data,  you would think that fraud was still not likely.  But quibbling over a prior is very different from claiming nothing meaningful can come out of their analysis.
<br> <br>
In fact, I think the penultimate sentence from the article is spot on:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.005.
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
But I would agree with you that some of the wording in the article seems very stilted.   I think this has more to do with "dumbing down" the article for popular consumption and less to do with crimes against Bayesian statistics (or whatever it is you're claiming).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud , the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant .
At the same time , the prior is most definitely impossible to know .
These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless .
* THAT * was my point .
If your statement is true then Bayesian statistics is always completely meaningless without informative priors , yet most of Bayesian analysis is done without informative priors and works quite well thank you very much .
The obvious , but unstated , assumption in the article is that they are using an uninformative prior which gives equal weight to fraud and no fraud .
You are free to quibble over their use of this prior .
For example if you thought ( before seeing their data ) there was only one chance in 10,000 chance that there would be fraud then even given their data , you would think that fraud was still not likely .
But quibbling over a prior is very different from claiming nothing meaningful can come out of their analysis .
In fact , I think the penultimate sentence from the article is spot on : The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005 .
But I would agree with you that some of the wording in the article seems very stilted .
I think this has more to do with " dumbing down " the article for popular consumption and less to do with crimes against Bayesian statistics ( or whatever it is you 're claiming ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud, the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant.
At the same time, the prior is most definitely impossible to know.
These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless.
*THAT* was my point.
If your statement is true then Bayesian statistics is always completely meaningless without informative priors, yet most of Bayesian analysis is done without informative priors and works quite well thank you very much.
The obvious, but unstated, assumption in the article is that they are using an uninformative prior which gives equal weight to fraud and no fraud.
You are free to quibble over their use of this prior.
For example if you thought (before seeing their data) there was only one chance in 10,000 chance that there would be fraud then even given their data,  you would think that fraud was still not likely.
But quibbling over a prior is very different from claiming nothing meaningful can come out of their analysis.
In fact, I think the penultimate sentence from the article is spot on: 
The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005.
But I would agree with you that some of the wording in the article seems very stilted.
I think this has more to do with "dumbing down" the article for popular consumption and less to do with crimes against Bayesian statistics (or whatever it is you're claiming).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410657</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, that's completely wrong. First:</p><blockquote><div><p> If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0735!<br>Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips. A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?)</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not remotely similar to their calculation. It's not a question combinatorics but a question of probability distributions. The last digits generated in a random process have one probability distribution function and human invented ones have another PDF. The comparison here is the election results vs the null hypothesis PDF. Your combinatorics example is completely irrelevant.</p><blockquote><div><p>Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating, we cannot make a posterior (the odds after considering the test, or the election results) prediction.</p></div></blockquote><p>Really dude, you need to read up on some statistics. What you are ranting about in that section is Bayes' theorem P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B). It's for conditional probabilities (what is the probability of A given B). It is not applicable in this situation. The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we're just looking at the distribution of the numbers. Let me illustrate the folly of your claim: Suppose that the vote count for each and all districts ended with the number 666. Would you say that this was a probable result and that you would have to have mr. A's honesty factored in? We can just looking at the numbers make a probability calculation that tells us how improbable a deviation from the expected PDF is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , that 's completely wrong .
First : If you know something about a binomial random variable ( which is what we just sampled from ) , you know that this is ( 100 choose 48 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) = .0735 ! Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips .
A 1 in 20 chance that , by their metrics , this was a fair set of coin flips ( see where the logical incongruity happens ?
) That 's not remotely similar to their calculation .
It 's not a question combinatorics but a question of probability distributions .
The last digits generated in a random process have one probability distribution function and human invented ones have another PDF .
The comparison here is the election results vs the null hypothesis PDF .
Your combinatorics example is completely irrelevant.Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating , we can not make a posterior ( the odds after considering the test , or the election results ) prediction.Really dude , you need to read up on some statistics .
What you are ranting about in that section is Bayes ' theorem P ( A | B ) = P ( B | A ) * P ( A ) /P ( B ) .
It 's for conditional probabilities ( what is the probability of A given B ) .
It is not applicable in this situation .
The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we 're just looking at the distribution of the numbers .
Let me illustrate the folly of your claim : Suppose that the vote count for each and all districts ended with the number 666 .
Would you say that this was a probable result and that you would have to have mr. A 's honesty factored in ?
We can just looking at the numbers make a probability calculation that tells us how improbable a deviation from the expected PDF is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, that's completely wrong.
First: If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) = .0735!Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips.
A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?
)That's not remotely similar to their calculation.
It's not a question combinatorics but a question of probability distributions.
The last digits generated in a random process have one probability distribution function and human invented ones have another PDF.
The comparison here is the election results vs the null hypothesis PDF.
Your combinatorics example is completely irrelevant.Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating, we cannot make a posterior (the odds after considering the test, or the election results) prediction.Really dude, you need to read up on some statistics.
What you are ranting about in that section is Bayes' theorem P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B).
It's for conditional probabilities (what is the probability of A given B).
It is not applicable in this situation.
The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we're just looking at the distribution of the numbers.
Let me illustrate the folly of your claim: Suppose that the vote count for each and all districts ended with the number 666.
Would you say that this was a probable result and that you would have to have mr. A's honesty factored in?
We can just looking at the numbers make a probability calculation that tells us how improbable a deviation from the expected PDF is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269</id>
	<title>nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245595920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It is hard to fathom how <i>the</i> story of the year (also the tech story of the year) could be tagged "nomoreiranplease".  Tech has played a critical role in this event.  Who ever thought that twitter could actually be useful?  The diaspora of communications technologies has proved very hard to shut down, and it will be interesting to see what new communications tech adds to this in the future.
</p><p>
One issue this brings up is the differences between the <a href="http://www.fark.com/" title="fark.com" rel="nofollow">fark</a> [fark.com] free-for-all comment system (including images!) versus slashdot's moderation.  The contribution of fark to reporting what has been going on in Iran has been really impressive, and fark is essentially a news aggregator just like slashdot.  Does the moderation system of slashdot prevent a similar thing from happening here?  I had hoped to see a much more vigorous discussion from the slashdot community, but the real action is elsewhere.  Part of this is due to the moderation system, I think, which effectively forces an end to conversations when the mods run out.
</p><p>
I'm not trying to be trollish, but think this is an interesting thing to think about.  Slashdot used to feel like the center of the tech universe, but has been badly outdone on this topic by fark and others.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is hard to fathom how the story of the year ( also the tech story of the year ) could be tagged " nomoreiranplease " .
Tech has played a critical role in this event .
Who ever thought that twitter could actually be useful ?
The diaspora of communications technologies has proved very hard to shut down , and it will be interesting to see what new communications tech adds to this in the future .
One issue this brings up is the differences between the fark [ fark.com ] free-for-all comment system ( including images !
) versus slashdot 's moderation .
The contribution of fark to reporting what has been going on in Iran has been really impressive , and fark is essentially a news aggregator just like slashdot .
Does the moderation system of slashdot prevent a similar thing from happening here ?
I had hoped to see a much more vigorous discussion from the slashdot community , but the real action is elsewhere .
Part of this is due to the moderation system , I think , which effectively forces an end to conversations when the mods run out .
I 'm not trying to be trollish , but think this is an interesting thing to think about .
Slashdot used to feel like the center of the tech universe , but has been badly outdone on this topic by fark and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It is hard to fathom how the story of the year (also the tech story of the year) could be tagged "nomoreiranplease".
Tech has played a critical role in this event.
Who ever thought that twitter could actually be useful?
The diaspora of communications technologies has proved very hard to shut down, and it will be interesting to see what new communications tech adds to this in the future.
One issue this brings up is the differences between the fark [fark.com] free-for-all comment system (including images!
) versus slashdot's moderation.
The contribution of fark to reporting what has been going on in Iran has been really impressive, and fark is essentially a news aggregator just like slashdot.
Does the moderation system of slashdot prevent a similar thing from happening here?
I had hoped to see a much more vigorous discussion from the slashdot community, but the real action is elsewhere.
Part of this is due to the moderation system, I think, which effectively forces an end to conversations when the mods run out.
I'm not trying to be trollish, but think this is an interesting thing to think about.
Slashdot used to feel like the center of the tech universe, but has been badly outdone on this topic by fark and others.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410809</id>
	<title>Petition disclosure of filtering software sold!!</title>
	<author>Coutal</author>
	<datestamp>1245600360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to this: http://opennet.net/research/profiles/iran<br>Nokia/siemens sold filtering software to iran, quite the nefarious thing to do, perhaps even bypassing some boycott agreements and US export regulations, if containing any US code. now's the time to make them disclose what sofware they sold, and everything they know about the filtering system. a lot of lives are at stake, now's the time.<br>if any nokia/siemens employees are reading this, pass this on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this : http : //opennet.net/research/profiles/iranNokia/siemens sold filtering software to iran , quite the nefarious thing to do , perhaps even bypassing some boycott agreements and US export regulations , if containing any US code .
now 's the time to make them disclose what sofware they sold , and everything they know about the filtering system .
a lot of lives are at stake , now 's the time.if any nokia/siemens employees are reading this , pass this on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this: http://opennet.net/research/profiles/iranNokia/siemens sold filtering software to iran, quite the nefarious thing to do, perhaps even bypassing some boycott agreements and US export regulations, if containing any US code.
now's the time to make them disclose what sofware they sold, and everything they know about the filtering system.
a lot of lives are at stake, now's the time.if any nokia/siemens employees are reading this, pass this on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414465</id>
	<title>Re:The YouTube Revolution</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1245586380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b>"Say what you want about the decadent west, but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this.</b></i> "</p><p>Not without your address anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Say what you want about the decadent west , but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this .
" Not without your address anyway : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Say what you want about the decadent west, but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this.
"Not without your address anyway :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410689</id>
	<title>WoW gold farmers allowed?</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1245599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are probably responsible for a huge part of the Iranian exports.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/s</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are probably responsible for a huge part of the Iranian exports .
/s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are probably responsible for a huge part of the Iranian exports.
/s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412491</id>
	<title>Hand of god?</title>
	<author>partridge</author>
	<datestamp>1245613140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The statistical anomaly is merely proof of divine intervention in the election results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The statistical anomaly is merely proof of divine intervention in the election results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statistical anomaly is merely proof of divine intervention in the election results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415425</id>
	<title>You're so naive</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1245595500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the CIA could never organise an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d'etat" title="wikipedia.org">overthrow of Government in Iran</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the CIA could never organise an overthrow of Government in Iran [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the CIA could never organise an overthrow of Government in Iran [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423411</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, clearly the USA installed the conservative leadership AND created the opposition movement.  Not only that, all the "protesters" are actually US citizens shipped in my helicopter.  The reason some voting precincts recorded &gt;100\% turnout is from all the american protesters on the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , clearly the USA installed the conservative leadership AND created the opposition movement .
Not only that , all the " protesters " are actually US citizens shipped in my helicopter .
The reason some voting precincts recorded &gt; 100 \ % turnout is from all the american protesters on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, clearly the USA installed the conservative leadership AND created the opposition movement.
Not only that, all the "protesters" are actually US citizens shipped in my helicopter.
The reason some voting precincts recorded &gt;100\% turnout is from all the american protesters on the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</id>
	<title>I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We pretty much know what Iran is all about.  It is rather overt and obvious to most everyone.  Any illusion about a democratically elected government can pretty much be put to rest.  And now that they are invoking religious law (not that they haven't been all along) it is clear exactly where the source of power is.  (Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power, I already know.)</p><p>But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?  Will we care and demonstrate as much as the Iranians when the next freedom eroding thing happens in the US?  Will we take to the streets in protest of ACTA?  Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards?  I seriously doubt it.  The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out.  Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We pretty much know what Iran is all about .
It is rather overt and obvious to most everyone .
Any illusion about a democratically elected government can pretty much be put to rest .
And now that they are invoking religious law ( not that they have n't been all along ) it is clear exactly where the source of power is .
( Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power , I already know .
) But I keep asking myself , why should we care at all ?
Will we care and demonstrate as much as the Iranians when the next freedom eroding thing happens in the US ?
Will we take to the streets in protest of ACTA ?
Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards ?
I seriously doubt it .
The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out .
Keep the slaves comfortable , busy and distracted , and they wo n't put up a fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We pretty much know what Iran is all about.
It is rather overt and obvious to most everyone.
Any illusion about a democratically elected government can pretty much be put to rest.
And now that they are invoking religious law (not that they haven't been all along) it is clear exactly where the source of power is.
(Save the comments about the U.S. putting the Ayatolla into power, I already know.
)But I keep asking myself, why should we care at all?
Will we care and demonstrate as much as the Iranians when the next freedom eroding thing happens in the US?
Will we take to the streets in protest of ACTA?
Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards?
I seriously doubt it.
The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out.
Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411625</id>
	<title>Re:... and publicly announcing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm... yeah... You've just given Savik more ports to block.... Nice going!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... yeah... You 've just given Savik more ports to block.... Nice going !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... yeah... You've just given Savik more ports to block.... Nice going!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412029</id>
	<title>Re:Iran Filtering not that weak you think!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; we can't use the old ssh tunneling methods any more</p><p>Has anyone explored the possibility of steganographic tunneling?  The idea is that it would appear just like normal non-encrypted browsing.  Obviously there would be a large bandwidth hit since the real content would be hidden in a lot of plaintext and images, but that's better than nothing at all.  And of course you'd need some support for the outside end of the tunnel, but I think there are a lot of people in the USA and Europe who would be willing to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; we ca n't use the old ssh tunneling methods any moreHas anyone explored the possibility of steganographic tunneling ?
The idea is that it would appear just like normal non-encrypted browsing .
Obviously there would be a large bandwidth hit since the real content would be hidden in a lot of plaintext and images , but that 's better than nothing at all .
And of course you 'd need some support for the outside end of the tunnel , but I think there are a lot of people in the USA and Europe who would be willing to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; we can't use the old ssh tunneling methods any moreHas anyone explored the possibility of steganographic tunneling?
The idea is that it would appear just like normal non-encrypted browsing.
Obviously there would be a large bandwidth hit since the real content would be hidden in a lot of plaintext and images, but that's better than nothing at all.
And of course you'd need some support for the outside end of the tunnel, but I think there are a lot of people in the USA and Europe who would be willing to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413107</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>TheBeowulf</author>
	<datestamp>1245575160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazing.  Kent State is brought up as an example of trying to compare protests in Iran to previous protests in the US?  There isn't enough information coming out of Iran to confirm or deny the type of protests going on but by all accounts it sounds peaceful on the side of protesters and open violence on the side of the government.  Kent State, by the time the fourth day of protesting rolled around, those students were <b> <i>far</i> </b> from peaceful and while this doesn't excuse the tragedy of killing and maiming said students, it does seriously call into question the comparison here.  <br>
<br>
There are plenty of other peaceful protests that come to mind that would make much better comparisons.  Many of the Civil Rights marches come to mind.  <br>
<br> <br> <br>
-- <br>
<i>Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
Kent State is brought up as an example of trying to compare protests in Iran to previous protests in the US ?
There is n't enough information coming out of Iran to confirm or deny the type of protests going on but by all accounts it sounds peaceful on the side of protesters and open violence on the side of the government .
Kent State , by the time the fourth day of protesting rolled around , those students were far from peaceful and while this does n't excuse the tragedy of killing and maiming said students , it does seriously call into question the comparison here .
There are plenty of other peaceful protests that come to mind that would make much better comparisons .
Many of the Civil Rights marches come to mind .
-- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
Kent State is brought up as an example of trying to compare protests in Iran to previous protests in the US?
There isn't enough information coming out of Iran to confirm or deny the type of protests going on but by all accounts it sounds peaceful on the side of protesters and open violence on the side of the government.
Kent State, by the time the fourth day of protesting rolled around, those students were  far  from peaceful and while this doesn't excuse the tragedy of killing and maiming said students, it does seriously call into question the comparison here.
There are plenty of other peaceful protests that come to mind that would make much better comparisons.
Many of the Civil Rights marches come to mind.
-- 
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28416921</id>
	<title>The old fashioned techniques are alive and well</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1245606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not so fast. The Iranian authorities are shutting off as many of these tools as possible, as well as using the good old fashioned technique of simply imprisoning the sources. For example Amir Sadeghi, the brave photojournalist who runs the <a href="http://tehranlive.org/" title="tehranlive.org">http://tehranlive.org/</a> [tehranlive.org] blog, has gone missing. Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMdXvMhsFJI" title="youtube.com">just plain shooting protesters down in the street</a> [youtube.com] has evidently not lost its appeal. The net provides new and revolutionary tools of communication, but brutal dictatorships are still able to leverage their tried and true techniques.
<br>
<br>
The "Islamic Republic" has lasted longer than the Shah, and has clearly shown that religious oligarchies are every bit as corrupt, barbaric, and secretive as secular ones.
<br>
<br>
I hope the people of Iran are able to free themselves of dictatorship soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so fast .
The Iranian authorities are shutting off as many of these tools as possible , as well as using the good old fashioned technique of simply imprisoning the sources .
For example Amir Sadeghi , the brave photojournalist who runs the http : //tehranlive.org/ [ tehranlive.org ] blog , has gone missing .
Also , just plain shooting protesters down in the street [ youtube.com ] has evidently not lost its appeal .
The net provides new and revolutionary tools of communication , but brutal dictatorships are still able to leverage their tried and true techniques .
The " Islamic Republic " has lasted longer than the Shah , and has clearly shown that religious oligarchies are every bit as corrupt , barbaric , and secretive as secular ones .
I hope the people of Iran are able to free themselves of dictatorship soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so fast.
The Iranian authorities are shutting off as many of these tools as possible, as well as using the good old fashioned technique of simply imprisoning the sources.
For example Amir Sadeghi, the brave photojournalist who runs the http://tehranlive.org/ [tehranlive.org] blog, has gone missing.
Also, just plain shooting protesters down in the street [youtube.com] has evidently not lost its appeal.
The net provides new and revolutionary tools of communication, but brutal dictatorships are still able to leverage their tried and true techniques.
The "Islamic Republic" has lasted longer than the Shah, and has clearly shown that religious oligarchies are every bit as corrupt, barbaric, and secretive as secular ones.
I hope the people of Iran are able to free themselves of dictatorship soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415615</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1245597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<b>There are as many ways to hide "communications" as there are protocols and servers out there</b>"<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>

Exactly!
These people haven't learned anything from watching Star Trek: Voyager ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are as many ways to hide " communications " as there are protocols and servers out there " .
Exactly ! These people have n't learned anything from watching Star Trek : Voyager ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There are as many ways to hide "communications" as there are protocols and servers out there" .
Exactly!
These people haven't learned anything from watching Star Trek: Voyager ?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28513513</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>EQ</author>
	<datestamp>1246287840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where did I say "Republican" and "conservative" as positives in my post? Hmm?  Try reading it instead of projecting your blinkered political rage onto it.
<br> <br>
If you actually bothered to read it, you'd see my post was about the left (liberals. Obama) being as bad as the right (Bush, conservatives) at demonizing their opponent and being unthinkingly negative instead of trying to look at facts (And there are, as I pointed out, plenty of factual and reasonable ways to criticize Bush, which many here seem to ignore in favor of emotionally charged name calling  -- like yours)
<br> <br>
Sadly, your response shows more about you and your lack of reading comprehension than it does my libertarian political words.  If fact, it was an almost picture perfect example of a "knee jerk" lefty/righty response, attempting to fill in the blanks in your mind with whatever it is you hate the most.
<br> <br>
Stop blindly responding in a knee jerk fashion with namecalling, stop hating, start using your brain and comprehending,  and start thinking about liberty.  Otherwise you're just a convenient tool for one side or the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did I say " Republican " and " conservative " as positives in my post ?
Hmm ? Try reading it instead of projecting your blinkered political rage onto it .
If you actually bothered to read it , you 'd see my post was about the left ( liberals .
Obama ) being as bad as the right ( Bush , conservatives ) at demonizing their opponent and being unthinkingly negative instead of trying to look at facts ( And there are , as I pointed out , plenty of factual and reasonable ways to criticize Bush , which many here seem to ignore in favor of emotionally charged name calling -- like yours ) Sadly , your response shows more about you and your lack of reading comprehension than it does my libertarian political words .
If fact , it was an almost picture perfect example of a " knee jerk " lefty/righty response , attempting to fill in the blanks in your mind with whatever it is you hate the most .
Stop blindly responding in a knee jerk fashion with namecalling , stop hating , start using your brain and comprehending , and start thinking about liberty .
Otherwise you 're just a convenient tool for one side or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did I say "Republican" and "conservative" as positives in my post?
Hmm?  Try reading it instead of projecting your blinkered political rage onto it.
If you actually bothered to read it, you'd see my post was about the left (liberals.
Obama) being as bad as the right (Bush, conservatives) at demonizing their opponent and being unthinkingly negative instead of trying to look at facts (And there are, as I pointed out, plenty of factual and reasonable ways to criticize Bush, which many here seem to ignore in favor of emotionally charged name calling  -- like yours)
 
Sadly, your response shows more about you and your lack of reading comprehension than it does my libertarian political words.
If fact, it was an almost picture perfect example of a "knee jerk" lefty/righty response, attempting to fill in the blanks in your mind with whatever it is you hate the most.
Stop blindly responding in a knee jerk fashion with namecalling, stop hating, start using your brain and comprehending,  and start thinking about liberty.
Otherwise you're just a convenient tool for one side or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410433</id>
	<title>setup tor bridges</title>
	<author>deviceb</author>
	<datestamp>1245597300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>search #iranelection or #neda on twitterfall.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>search # iranelection or # neda on twitterfall.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>search #iranelection or #neda on twitterfall.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28418419</id>
	<title>Help them or get out of the way, sheesh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are asking for help on Twitter. Pleading.  Help with getting news in and out.  A basic right being blocked by technical means. If their government had nothing to hide CNN and the BBC would be saturating us with coverage.</p><p>Hopefully some technical experts are interested in helping.  Those who are not interested can read other slashdot articles.  No one is stopping you.</p><p>I gather Nokia and Siemens were the providers of the technology the government is using to block their citizens from the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are asking for help on Twitter .
Pleading. Help with getting news in and out .
A basic right being blocked by technical means .
If their government had nothing to hide CNN and the BBC would be saturating us with coverage.Hopefully some technical experts are interested in helping .
Those who are not interested can read other slashdot articles .
No one is stopping you.I gather Nokia and Siemens were the providers of the technology the government is using to block their citizens from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are asking for help on Twitter.
Pleading.  Help with getting news in and out.
A basic right being blocked by technical means.
If their government had nothing to hide CNN and the BBC would be saturating us with coverage.Hopefully some technical experts are interested in helping.
Those who are not interested can read other slashdot articles.
No one is stopping you.I gather Nokia and Siemens were the providers of the technology the government is using to block their citizens from the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414425</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>hxnwix</author>
	<datestamp>1245586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards?</p></div><p>*smirk*</p><p>Just like we burn our required government schools, required government roads, required government FDA...  Have you suffered severe cranial trauma recently?  Might want to have that checked out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards ?
* smirk * Just like we burn our required government schools , required government roads , required government FDA... Have you suffered severe cranial trauma recently ?
Might want to have that checked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will we collectively burn our required government healthcare cards?
*smirk*Just like we burn our required government schools, required government roads, required government FDA...  Have you suffered severe cranial trauma recently?
Might want to have that checked out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411271</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ssshhhh you're scaring "progressives" out of their little fantasy world. In a minute you're going to say that it's islamic law to kill anyone who tries to leave their "tolerant" religion. Their world is built on all religions being equally good, and tolerant, when of course all signs point entirely the other way. Just because one religion pushes the "turn the other cheek", and separation of religion and state, does not negate the fact that nearly all religions are in fact repressive totalitarian ideologies, like socialism. There is exactly one religion that wants separation of religion and state, (nearly) all others prescribe a repressive state like the iranian one.</p><p>We all know this is true, of course, and that such executions have taken place even in the US. But shhhhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you're scaring progressives. In a minute you're going to start saying that we should do something about that. Of course muslims fear (or <i>know</i>) that preventing them from executing anyone they don't agree with will cause an immediate collapse in their religion (and even the most optimistic of them see an immediate and massive splintering), so they won't let that happen. That means we would have to fight to make that happen.</p><p>Above all, don't ask the forbidden question : "what if this 'revolution' gets shot to bits in the name of the paedophile prophet, and the corpses pile up without political change ?". This would prove that peaceful evolution doesn't work, and that any change will have to be preceded by an application of superior force toward any islamic state. In a word, that the only starting point for Iranian freedom would be an invasion. Worse : an invasion at least parly in the name of destroying a particular religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ssshhhh you 're scaring " progressives " out of their little fantasy world .
In a minute you 're going to say that it 's islamic law to kill anyone who tries to leave their " tolerant " religion .
Their world is built on all religions being equally good , and tolerant , when of course all signs point entirely the other way .
Just because one religion pushes the " turn the other cheek " , and separation of religion and state , does not negate the fact that nearly all religions are in fact repressive totalitarian ideologies , like socialism .
There is exactly one religion that wants separation of religion and state , ( nearly ) all others prescribe a repressive state like the iranian one.We all know this is true , of course , and that such executions have taken place even in the US .
But shhhhh ... you 're scaring progressives .
In a minute you 're going to start saying that we should do something about that .
Of course muslims fear ( or know ) that preventing them from executing anyone they do n't agree with will cause an immediate collapse in their religion ( and even the most optimistic of them see an immediate and massive splintering ) , so they wo n't let that happen .
That means we would have to fight to make that happen.Above all , do n't ask the forbidden question : " what if this 'revolution ' gets shot to bits in the name of the paedophile prophet , and the corpses pile up without political change ? " .
This would prove that peaceful evolution does n't work , and that any change will have to be preceded by an application of superior force toward any islamic state .
In a word , that the only starting point for Iranian freedom would be an invasion .
Worse : an invasion at least parly in the name of destroying a particular religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ssshhhh you're scaring "progressives" out of their little fantasy world.
In a minute you're going to say that it's islamic law to kill anyone who tries to leave their "tolerant" religion.
Their world is built on all religions being equally good, and tolerant, when of course all signs point entirely the other way.
Just because one religion pushes the "turn the other cheek", and separation of religion and state, does not negate the fact that nearly all religions are in fact repressive totalitarian ideologies, like socialism.
There is exactly one religion that wants separation of religion and state, (nearly) all others prescribe a repressive state like the iranian one.We all know this is true, of course, and that such executions have taken place even in the US.
But shhhhh ... you're scaring progressives.
In a minute you're going to start saying that we should do something about that.
Of course muslims fear (or know) that preventing them from executing anyone they don't agree with will cause an immediate collapse in their religion (and even the most optimistic of them see an immediate and massive splintering), so they won't let that happen.
That means we would have to fight to make that happen.Above all, don't ask the forbidden question : "what if this 'revolution' gets shot to bits in the name of the paedophile prophet, and the corpses pile up without political change ?".
This would prove that peaceful evolution doesn't work, and that any change will have to be preceded by an application of superior force toward any islamic state.
In a word, that the only starting point for Iranian freedom would be an invasion.
Worse : an invasion at least parly in the name of destroying a particular religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411085</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245602460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The" story of the year?  To whom?  Tech has played a critical role in this event?  Well, why hasn't the government been overthrown yet?  It's certainly not due to lack of IT support.  Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow?<p>Please re-evaluate your web-centric thinking.  You know that something like 95\% of fark.com users never even click on the comments, much less ever post one?  It's a big circle jerk.  The focus seems to be on self-congratulation and providing trivial services rather than any actual, you know, <i>goals</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The " story of the year ?
To whom ?
Tech has played a critical role in this event ?
Well , why has n't the government been overthrown yet ?
It 's certainly not due to lack of IT support .
Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow ? Please re-evaluate your web-centric thinking .
You know that something like 95 \ % of fark.com users never even click on the comments , much less ever post one ?
It 's a big circle jerk .
The focus seems to be on self-congratulation and providing trivial services rather than any actual , you know , goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The" story of the year?
To whom?
Tech has played a critical role in this event?
Well, why hasn't the government been overthrown yet?
It's certainly not due to lack of IT support.
Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow?Please re-evaluate your web-centric thinking.
You know that something like 95\% of fark.com users never even click on the comments, much less ever post one?
It's a big circle jerk.
The focus seems to be on self-congratulation and providing trivial services rather than any actual, you know, goals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410713</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this unauthorised access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why is this OK when the others aren't?</p></div><p>It's okay in this case though, we don't like their government or its policies!</p><p>Oh wait..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is this OK when the others are n't ? It 's okay in this case though , we do n't like their government or its policies ! Oh wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is this OK when the others aren't?It's okay in this case though, we don't like their government or its policies!Oh wait..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28417081</id>
	<title>Re:Prot or protocol blocking?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245608220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ports are not protocols.  Or, to put it in geekspeak for you, Port != Protocol.  Port is short for "Communications Port", and it is required to communicate with the OS from an external source.  A protocol is a standardized method of communication.  For example, TCP/IP are two protocols for networking - the Transport Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol.  They basically establish the pattern the ones and zeros will take when exiting your machine, so that another machine knows where the relavent data is in the stream of bits coming accross.</p><p>There are ports designated for certain protocols, but the list is small compared to the total number of ports available and there is nothing that says a protocol can't work over a port designated for something else, like sending FTP data over port 80 (HTTP) instead of ports 20 or 21, which are designated for it.</p><p>Last, the recieving computer doesn't care what port it was sent on, it only cares which port it will be coming in on.  This is why we have designated ports, because the protocol will default to these ports unless instructed otherwise.  It's also sort of like putting a "reserved" sign on a dinner table.  It doesn't mean someone can't sit down and have dinner, but they will know they normally shouldn't.</p><p>All that to say, no, they aren't blocking ports.  They are blocking protocols - which have distinct patterns and can be detected and blocked rather simply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ports are not protocols .
Or , to put it in geekspeak for you , Port ! = Protocol .
Port is short for " Communications Port " , and it is required to communicate with the OS from an external source .
A protocol is a standardized method of communication .
For example , TCP/IP are two protocols for networking - the Transport Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol .
They basically establish the pattern the ones and zeros will take when exiting your machine , so that another machine knows where the relavent data is in the stream of bits coming accross.There are ports designated for certain protocols , but the list is small compared to the total number of ports available and there is nothing that says a protocol ca n't work over a port designated for something else , like sending FTP data over port 80 ( HTTP ) instead of ports 20 or 21 , which are designated for it.Last , the recieving computer does n't care what port it was sent on , it only cares which port it will be coming in on .
This is why we have designated ports , because the protocol will default to these ports unless instructed otherwise .
It 's also sort of like putting a " reserved " sign on a dinner table .
It does n't mean someone ca n't sit down and have dinner , but they will know they normally should n't.All that to say , no , they are n't blocking ports .
They are blocking protocols - which have distinct patterns and can be detected and blocked rather simply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ports are not protocols.
Or, to put it in geekspeak for you, Port != Protocol.
Port is short for "Communications Port", and it is required to communicate with the OS from an external source.
A protocol is a standardized method of communication.
For example, TCP/IP are two protocols for networking - the Transport Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol.
They basically establish the pattern the ones and zeros will take when exiting your machine, so that another machine knows where the relavent data is in the stream of bits coming accross.There are ports designated for certain protocols, but the list is small compared to the total number of ports available and there is nothing that says a protocol can't work over a port designated for something else, like sending FTP data over port 80 (HTTP) instead of ports 20 or 21, which are designated for it.Last, the recieving computer doesn't care what port it was sent on, it only cares which port it will be coming in on.
This is why we have designated ports, because the protocol will default to these ports unless instructed otherwise.
It's also sort of like putting a "reserved" sign on a dinner table.
It doesn't mean someone can't sit down and have dinner, but they will know they normally shouldn't.All that to say, no, they aren't blocking ports.
They are blocking protocols - which have distinct patterns and can be detected and blocked rather simply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</id>
	<title>The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To help illustrate, I am going to flip a fair coin 100 times. Actually i'll have a computer do it for me. I end up with...</p><p>*drumroll*</p><p>48 heads and 52 tails!</p><p>Seems pretty reasonable. The question is, now, how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails?</p><p>If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0735!</p><p>Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips. A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?)</p><p>The bottom line is the probabilities we get out of this are not useful to think of as absolute...with so many possibilities the likelihood that any one of them in particular pops up is extremely small. However, we know that at least one of them *will* pop up. It is more useful to think of these likelihoods as relative probabilities...if you take the ratio of any two of them, that does tell you how many times more likely one is to happen than the other.</p><p>Maybe a useful test would have been to randomly generate some results and look at the likelihood ratio?</p><p>Beyond that, to truly say something like "and the probability that they cheated was X", you need to have prior distributions over cheating and not cheating.</p><p>A good example for why this is true is the following classic example: you take a test for a disease that has a 99\% chance of correctly diagnosing you, and one out of every 10000000 people have this disease. It diagnosis you as positive. Should you be worried?</p><p>The answer is: given only that information above, no you should not be worried. Of 1000000000 people, there will be 10000000 false positives (multiply by 1\%) and 99 true positives. The rest will be negative (including one false negative, and assuming I did the arithmetic right which is not a given). Given that you test positive, the likelihood that you are, in fact, sick, is 99/10000000. Not bad odds...</p><p>The information about how much of the population actually has the disease is what's called a prior. Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating, we cannot make a posterior (the odds after considering the test, or the election results) prediction.</p><p>There are lies, damn lies, and statistics... but actual statisticians are pretty good at this stuff. They don't often do political polling though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To help illustrate , I am going to flip a fair coin 100 times .
Actually i 'll have a computer do it for me .
I end up with... * drumroll * 48 heads and 52 tails ! Seems pretty reasonable .
The question is , now , how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails ? If you know something about a binomial random variable ( which is what we just sampled from ) , you know that this is ( 100 choose 48 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) = .0735 ! Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips .
A 1 in 20 chance that , by their metrics , this was a fair set of coin flips ( see where the logical incongruity happens ?
) The bottom line is the probabilities we get out of this are not useful to think of as absolute...with so many possibilities the likelihood that any one of them in particular pops up is extremely small .
However , we know that at least one of them * will * pop up .
It is more useful to think of these likelihoods as relative probabilities...if you take the ratio of any two of them , that does tell you how many times more likely one is to happen than the other.Maybe a useful test would have been to randomly generate some results and look at the likelihood ratio ? Beyond that , to truly say something like " and the probability that they cheated was X " , you need to have prior distributions over cheating and not cheating.A good example for why this is true is the following classic example : you take a test for a disease that has a 99 \ % chance of correctly diagnosing you , and one out of every 10000000 people have this disease .
It diagnosis you as positive .
Should you be worried ? The answer is : given only that information above , no you should not be worried .
Of 1000000000 people , there will be 10000000 false positives ( multiply by 1 \ % ) and 99 true positives .
The rest will be negative ( including one false negative , and assuming I did the arithmetic right which is not a given ) .
Given that you test positive , the likelihood that you are , in fact , sick , is 99/10000000 .
Not bad odds...The information about how much of the population actually has the disease is what 's called a prior .
Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating , we can not make a posterior ( the odds after considering the test , or the election results ) prediction.There are lies , damn lies , and statistics... but actual statisticians are pretty good at this stuff .
They do n't often do political polling though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To help illustrate, I am going to flip a fair coin 100 times.
Actually i'll have a computer do it for me.
I end up with...*drumroll*48 heads and 52 tails!Seems pretty reasonable.
The question is, now, how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails?If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) = .0735!Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips.
A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?
)The bottom line is the probabilities we get out of this are not useful to think of as absolute...with so many possibilities the likelihood that any one of them in particular pops up is extremely small.
However, we know that at least one of them *will* pop up.
It is more useful to think of these likelihoods as relative probabilities...if you take the ratio of any two of them, that does tell you how many times more likely one is to happen than the other.Maybe a useful test would have been to randomly generate some results and look at the likelihood ratio?Beyond that, to truly say something like "and the probability that they cheated was X", you need to have prior distributions over cheating and not cheating.A good example for why this is true is the following classic example: you take a test for a disease that has a 99\% chance of correctly diagnosing you, and one out of every 10000000 people have this disease.
It diagnosis you as positive.
Should you be worried?The answer is: given only that information above, no you should not be worried.
Of 1000000000 people, there will be 10000000 false positives (multiply by 1\%) and 99 true positives.
The rest will be negative (including one false negative, and assuming I did the arithmetic right which is not a given).
Given that you test positive, the likelihood that you are, in fact, sick, is 99/10000000.
Not bad odds...The information about how much of the population actually has the disease is what's called a prior.
Without a prior on Ahmadi cheating, we cannot make a posterior (the odds after considering the test, or the election results) prediction.There are lies, damn lies, and statistics... but actual statisticians are pretty good at this stuff.
They don't often do political polling though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410727</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Responding to "The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we're just looking at the distribution of the numbers."</p><p>The claim of the article was that the probability of Mr. A not cheating was 1 in 200. That was the claim I was disputing, not the fact that the ballot numbers were wonky. I thought my point was clear, given the subject I chose for my comment.</p><p>When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud, the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant. At the same time, the prior is most definitely impossible to know. These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless. *THAT* was my point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Responding to " The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we 're just looking at the distribution of the numbers .
" The claim of the article was that the probability of Mr. A not cheating was 1 in 200 .
That was the claim I was disputing , not the fact that the ballot numbers were wonky .
I thought my point was clear , given the subject I chose for my comment.When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud , the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant .
At the same time , the prior is most definitely impossible to know .
These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless .
* THAT * was my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Responding to "The prior probability of mr.A cheating has no consequence - we're just looking at the distribution of the numbers.
"The claim of the article was that the probability of Mr. A not cheating was 1 in 200.
That was the claim I was disputing, not the fact that the ballot numbers were wonky.
I thought my point was clear, given the subject I chose for my comment.When claiming some quantifiable likelihood that there was fraud, the prior on fraud is most definitely relevant.
At the same time, the prior is most definitely impossible to know.
These two things together make any posterior estimate completely meaningless.
*THAT* was my point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410563</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing you've never lived in D.C. or New York were protests are common things.  Among the dozens or hundreds a year, there's at least one protest against the NYPD for a shooting, rape, etc.  That puts the protesters directly up against the people they're protesting against.  And a lot of these are a few dozen people but some are large, loud and pissed.  There was a police shooting in NYC a few years ago and Jesse Jackson lead a march on City Hall.  The crowd was loud enough I could hear them through a closed office door on the twentieth floor.<br> <br>
Actually just look back at the 2000 presidential election, there was a lot of protesting against the results in Florida... across the country.  The tea parties earlier this year were protests.<br> <br>
So yes... US citizens can and do protest.  Thankfully we live in a country where that usually doesn't lead to bloodshed... but even that has happened on very rare occasion. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent\_State\_shootings" title="wikipedia.org">Complete with pictures of people being shot and dying.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you 've never lived in D.C. or New York were protests are common things .
Among the dozens or hundreds a year , there 's at least one protest against the NYPD for a shooting , rape , etc .
That puts the protesters directly up against the people they 're protesting against .
And a lot of these are a few dozen people but some are large , loud and pissed .
There was a police shooting in NYC a few years ago and Jesse Jackson lead a march on City Hall .
The crowd was loud enough I could hear them through a closed office door on the twentieth floor .
Actually just look back at the 2000 presidential election , there was a lot of protesting against the results in Florida... across the country .
The tea parties earlier this year were protests .
So yes... US citizens can and do protest .
Thankfully we live in a country where that usually does n't lead to bloodshed... but even that has happened on very rare occasion .
Complete with pictures of people being shot and dying .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you've never lived in D.C. or New York were protests are common things.
Among the dozens or hundreds a year, there's at least one protest against the NYPD for a shooting, rape, etc.
That puts the protesters directly up against the people they're protesting against.
And a lot of these are a few dozen people but some are large, loud and pissed.
There was a police shooting in NYC a few years ago and Jesse Jackson lead a march on City Hall.
The crowd was loud enough I could hear them through a closed office door on the twentieth floor.
Actually just look back at the 2000 presidential election, there was a lot of protesting against the results in Florida... across the country.
The tea parties earlier this year were protests.
So yes... US citizens can and do protest.
Thankfully we live in a country where that usually doesn't lead to bloodshed... but even that has happened on very rare occasion.
Complete with pictures of people being shot and dying.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410509</id>
	<title>Start running proxies on the WoW ports...</title>
	<author>Thrakkerzog</author>
	<datestamp>1245597960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and when they shut down WoW, we will have a true revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and when they shut down WoW , we will have a true revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and when they shut down WoW, we will have a true revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413905</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245581520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iran already has a democracy, so this isn't a democratic revolution.</p><p>I think this is a bunch of reactionaries (in the west) supporting a cause just because it involves "the youth" etc. Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad, their policies are largely the same. Even Obama has stated this, which I give him a lot of credit for. For libertarians it should be even more clear cut. Only neocons and liberal idealists care if Iran has one mullah-supported leader over another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iran already has a democracy , so this is n't a democratic revolution.I think this is a bunch of reactionaries ( in the west ) supporting a cause just because it involves " the youth " etc .
Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad , their policies are largely the same .
Even Obama has stated this , which I give him a lot of credit for .
For libertarians it should be even more clear cut .
Only neocons and liberal idealists care if Iran has one mullah-supported leader over another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iran already has a democracy, so this isn't a democratic revolution.I think this is a bunch of reactionaries (in the west) supporting a cause just because it involves "the youth" etc.
Mousavi is no better than Ahmadinejad, their policies are largely the same.
Even Obama has stated this, which I give him a lot of credit for.
For libertarians it should be even more clear cut.
Only neocons and liberal idealists care if Iran has one mullah-supported leader over another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411169</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>48 heads and 52 tails!<br> <br>

Seems pretty reasonable. The question is, now, how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails?<br> <br>

If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0735!<br> <br>

Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips. A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?)</p></div><p>You've used quite the wrong metric, asking "what are the odds of this EXACT outcome in a fair contest".  The right question is "what are the odds of at least this this much deviation from the expected outcome in a fair contest".

In the case of your coin toss your questions would be  "how likely is it that in 100 flips, I will get 52 OR MORE of either heads or tails"
(note that if you were asking only about tails, you'd just get 1/2 the number, but considering the odds of 50 or more tails is only 50/50\% it's a bit misleading that way).
<br>
<br>
To get this you would sum all probabilities in the range, eg <br>
(100 choose  0)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 1)*.5^(100) +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... + (100 choose 47)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 52)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 53)*.5^(100)+... + (100 choose 100)*.5^(100)

<br>
which is about 76.4\%.
<br> <br>
That is, about 3/4 tosses of 100 coins will differ from 50-50 by at least two flips, this is very similar to the probabilities for these events in the recent US election, held up in the article as an example of 'normal' results.
<br> <br>
Now if you'd gotten something like 38-62 you'd have results about as unlikely as this election (2\%).<br> <br>

If you're familiar with stats at all, in general it's when the odds fall below 5\% that you have an interesting result, 2\% is quite interesting (though it depends on how often the event happens - 2\% in an election that happens once/4 years or so is going to happen by chance with a mean period of 200 years).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>48 heads and 52 tails !
Seems pretty reasonable .
The question is , now , how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails ?
If you know something about a binomial random variable ( which is what we just sampled from ) , you know that this is ( 100 choose 48 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) = .0735 !
Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips .
A 1 in 20 chance that , by their metrics , this was a fair set of coin flips ( see where the logical incongruity happens ?
) You 've used quite the wrong metric , asking " what are the odds of this EXACT outcome in a fair contest " .
The right question is " what are the odds of at least this this much deviation from the expected outcome in a fair contest " .
In the case of your coin toss your questions would be " how likely is it that in 100 flips , I will get 52 OR MORE of either heads or tails " ( note that if you were asking only about tails , you 'd just get 1/2 the number , but considering the odds of 50 or more tails is only 50/50 \ % it 's a bit misleading that way ) .
To get this you would sum all probabilities in the range , eg ( 100 choose 0 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + ( 100 choose 1 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + .... + ( 100 choose 47 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + ( 100 choose 48 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + ( 100 choose 52 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + ( 100 choose 53 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) + ... + ( 100 choose 100 ) * .5 ^ ( 100 ) which is about 76.4 \ % .
That is , about 3/4 tosses of 100 coins will differ from 50-50 by at least two flips , this is very similar to the probabilities for these events in the recent US election , held up in the article as an example of 'normal ' results .
Now if you 'd gotten something like 38-62 you 'd have results about as unlikely as this election ( 2 \ % ) .
If you 're familiar with stats at all , in general it 's when the odds fall below 5 \ % that you have an interesting result , 2 \ % is quite interesting ( though it depends on how often the event happens - 2 \ % in an election that happens once/4 years or so is going to happen by chance with a mean period of 200 years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>48 heads and 52 tails!
Seems pretty reasonable.
The question is, now, how likely is it that I flipped exactly 48 heads and 52 tails?
If you know something about a binomial random variable (which is what we just sampled from), you know that this is (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) = .0735!
Wow...and that was with only 100 random coin flips.
A 1 in 20 chance that, by their metrics, this was a fair set of coin flips (see where the logical incongruity happens?
)You've used quite the wrong metric, asking "what are the odds of this EXACT outcome in a fair contest".
The right question is "what are the odds of at least this this much deviation from the expected outcome in a fair contest".
In the case of your coin toss your questions would be  "how likely is it that in 100 flips, I will get 52 OR MORE of either heads or tails"
(note that if you were asking only about tails, you'd just get 1/2 the number, but considering the odds of 50 or more tails is only 50/50\% it's a bit misleading that way).
To get this you would sum all probabilities in the range, eg 
(100 choose  0)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 1)*.5^(100) + .... + (100 choose 47)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 48)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 52)*.5^(100) + (100 choose 53)*.5^(100)+... + (100 choose 100)*.5^(100)


which is about 76.4\%.
That is, about 3/4 tosses of 100 coins will differ from 50-50 by at least two flips, this is very similar to the probabilities for these events in the recent US election, held up in the article as an example of 'normal' results.
Now if you'd gotten something like 38-62 you'd have results about as unlikely as this election (2\%).
If you're familiar with stats at all, in general it's when the odds fall below 5\% that you have an interesting result, 2\% is quite interesting (though it depends on how often the event happens - 2\% in an election that happens once/4 years or so is going to happen by chance with a mean period of 200 years).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412677</id>
	<title>The YouTube Revolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245615120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This morning I've been watching clips "smuggled out" via posting onto YouTube.<br> <br>
It's axiomatic that if you know about YouTube and can post to YouTube that you can also view YouTube. And if you're viewing YouTube then you seeing a rest of the world that is a whole lot more fun than the hell hole you're stuck in at the moment. Of course the young college students fueling the protests would like their lives to be a bit more free than what they've been forced to live under -- especially the women!<br> <br>
So just how is that Sharia Law working out for you?<br> <br>
Say what you want about the decadent west, but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning I 've been watching clips " smuggled out " via posting onto YouTube .
It 's axiomatic that if you know about YouTube and can post to YouTube that you can also view YouTube .
And if you 're viewing YouTube then you seeing a rest of the world that is a whole lot more fun than the hell hole you 're stuck in at the moment .
Of course the young college students fueling the protests would like their lives to be a bit more free than what they 've been forced to live under -- especially the women !
So just how is that Sharia Law working out for you ?
Say what you want about the decadent west , but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning I've been watching clips "smuggled out" via posting onto YouTube.
It's axiomatic that if you know about YouTube and can post to YouTube that you can also view YouTube.
And if you're viewing YouTube then you seeing a rest of the world that is a whole lot more fun than the hell hole you're stuck in at the moment.
Of course the young college students fueling the protests would like their lives to be a bit more free than what they've been forced to live under -- especially the women!
So just how is that Sharia Law working out for you?
Say what you want about the decadent west, but nobody is about to show up at my door and beat me senseless for posting this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410527</id>
	<title>Re:USA never liked the iranian govt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm. I wonder what's more likely, a corrupt regime where the most influential leader is the highest religious authority as well or a government led by a democratically elected president.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
I wonder what 's more likely , a corrupt regime where the most influential leader is the highest religious authority as well or a government led by a democratically elected president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
I wonder what's more likely, a corrupt regime where the most influential leader is the highest religious authority as well or a government led by a democratically elected president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414423</id>
	<title>Re:nomoreiranplease?</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1245586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b>"The" story of the year? To whom? Tech has played a critical role in this event? Well, why hasn't the government been overthrown yet? It's certainly not due to lack of IT support. Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow?</b></i> "</p><p>Short answer: No. Nobody did.</p><p>That's not entirely accurate, but you had to have shelled out multiples of 10K checks to get a PDP 11 or similar. Waterloo had one 11/45 (sold to them by my co-worker, Ted Thorpe) that Dave Conroy wrote what is now "gcc" on because he wanted C for the RSX-11M our PDP11 ran. We automated the Canadian postal plants with them. Specifically Halifax, Victora, Toronto and Montreal, although it was first used to control a 10' square computers camera control ganty to make a commercial.</p><p>I had an "Ohio Scientific OS4U" (how in hell do I remember *this*)? for a consulting gig. It was worth about 7K and ran BASIC.</p><p>The first English/Arabic computer was made by RCTC in 83/84, they made 100 for the Saudi Royal family, in Torrance California and shipped to Saudi. But they did Arabic, not Farsi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The " story of the year ?
To whom ?
Tech has played a critical role in this event ?
Well , why has n't the government been overthrown yet ?
It 's certainly not due to lack of IT support .
Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow ?
" Short answer : No .
Nobody did.That 's not entirely accurate , but you had to have shelled out multiples of 10K checks to get a PDP 11 or similar .
Waterloo had one 11/45 ( sold to them by my co-worker , Ted Thorpe ) that Dave Conroy wrote what is now " gcc " on because he wanted C for the RSX-11M our PDP11 ran .
We automated the Canadian postal plants with them .
Specifically Halifax , Victora , Toronto and Montreal , although it was first used to control a 10 ' square computers camera control ganty to make a commercial.I had an " Ohio Scientific OS4U " ( how in hell do I remember * this * ) ?
for a consulting gig .
It was worth about 7K and ran BASIC.The first English/Arabic computer was made by RCTC in 83/84 , they made 100 for the Saudi Royal family , in Torrance California and shipped to Saudi .
But they did Arabic , not Farsi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The" story of the year?
To whom?
Tech has played a critical role in this event?
Well, why hasn't the government been overthrown yet?
It's certainly not due to lack of IT support.
Did they have computers in the 1979 overthrow?
"Short answer: No.
Nobody did.That's not entirely accurate, but you had to have shelled out multiples of 10K checks to get a PDP 11 or similar.
Waterloo had one 11/45 (sold to them by my co-worker, Ted Thorpe) that Dave Conroy wrote what is now "gcc" on because he wanted C for the RSX-11M our PDP11 ran.
We automated the Canadian postal plants with them.
Specifically Halifax, Victora, Toronto and Montreal, although it was first used to control a 10' square computers camera control ganty to make a commercial.I had an "Ohio Scientific OS4U" (how in hell do I remember *this*)?
for a consulting gig.
It was worth about 7K and ran BASIC.The first English/Arabic computer was made by RCTC in 83/84, they made 100 for the Saudi Royal family, in Torrance California and shipped to Saudi.
But they did Arabic, not Farsi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410375</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>Swizec</author>
	<datestamp>1245596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.</p></div><p>Oh you mean like we've done here in Europe since the times of ancient Rome when they invented the bread-and-games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses) doctrine? Well sometimes even that can only go so far, as shown by countless revolutions in the past. You can keep them fed and you can keep them entertained, but at some point, they will get bored of you and throw a revolution. Then said revolution counts as entertainment until the new (or old) government is well settled and finds some new sand to throw in the people's eyes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep the slaves comfortable , busy and distracted , and they wo n't put up a fight.Oh you mean like we 've done here in Europe since the times of ancient Rome when they invented the bread-and-games ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread \ _and \ _circuses ) doctrine ?
Well sometimes even that can only go so far , as shown by countless revolutions in the past .
You can keep them fed and you can keep them entertained , but at some point , they will get bored of you and throw a revolution .
Then said revolution counts as entertainment until the new ( or old ) government is well settled and finds some new sand to throw in the people 's eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.Oh you mean like we've done here in Europe since the times of ancient Rome when they invented the bread-and-games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses) doctrine?
Well sometimes even that can only go so far, as shown by countless revolutions in the past.
You can keep them fed and you can keep them entertained, but at some point, they will get bored of you and throw a revolution.
Then said revolution counts as entertainment until the new (or old) government is well settled and finds some new sand to throw in the people's eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410503</id>
	<title>Re:The 1 in 200 bit is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Elections aren't random.  Vote distributions aren't random.  People don't usually vote via coin-flip.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elections are n't random .
Vote distributions are n't random .
People do n't usually vote via coin-flip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elections aren't random.
Vote distributions aren't random.
People don't usually vote via coin-flip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410675</id>
	<title>Re:Internet filtering</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1245599220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The importance is in the subtelty, "Information will get from anywhere to anywhere" should really be "Information <b>can</b> get from anywhere to anywhere". The internet's sophistication is such that any geek will be able to find a hole, but would some Iranian whose friend has just been shot and wants to tell the world?<br> <br>
The widescale filtering may do little to deter the geeks <a href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/06/iranian-traffic-engineering/" title="arbornetworks.com" rel="nofollow">but it has had a profound effect on the average Iranian.</a> [arbornetworks.com] By blocking simple messaging protocols they have achieved their goal for the majority of the population and so by finding other simplistic ways (such as through the xbox) for people to communicate the damage can be undone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The importance is in the subtelty , " Information will get from anywhere to anywhere " should really be " Information can get from anywhere to anywhere " .
The internet 's sophistication is such that any geek will be able to find a hole , but would some Iranian whose friend has just been shot and wants to tell the world ?
The widescale filtering may do little to deter the geeks but it has had a profound effect on the average Iranian .
[ arbornetworks.com ] By blocking simple messaging protocols they have achieved their goal for the majority of the population and so by finding other simplistic ways ( such as through the xbox ) for people to communicate the damage can be undone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The importance is in the subtelty, "Information will get from anywhere to anywhere" should really be "Information can get from anywhere to anywhere".
The internet's sophistication is such that any geek will be able to find a hole, but would some Iranian whose friend has just been shot and wants to tell the world?
The widescale filtering may do little to deter the geeks but it has had a profound effect on the average Iranian.
[arbornetworks.com] By blocking simple messaging protocols they have achieved their goal for the majority of the population and so by finding other simplistic ways (such as through the xbox) for people to communicate the damage can be undone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414053</id>
	<title>Re:I keep asking myself why we care about Iran?</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1245582660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out. Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.</p></div><p>You're saying if you keep people happy they won't complain, but you present it as though that's a bad thing.

</p><p>What gives?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out .
Keep the slaves comfortable , busy and distracted , and they wo n't put up a fight.You 're saying if you keep people happy they wo n't complain , but you present it as though that 's a bad thing .
What gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government controllers in the U.S. long ago learned the secret that other governments have yet to figure out.
Keep the slaves comfortable, busy and distracted, and they won't put up a fight.You're saying if you keep people happy they won't complain, but you present it as though that's a bad thing.
What gives?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28513513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28417081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_127229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28417081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28513513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410563
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28414465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28415425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28413213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28411625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28423217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28412305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_127229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_127229.28410809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
