<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_145206</id>
	<title>DHS To Kill Domestic Satellite Spying Program</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245767160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/" rel="nofollow">mcgrew</a> writes <i>"The Bush administration had plans in place to <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/13/2331224&amp;tid=158">use spy satellites</a> to spy on American citizens. This morning the AP reports that new DHS head <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap\_on\_go\_ca\_st\_pe/us\_spy\_satellites">Janet Napolitano has axed those plans</a>. 'The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns. The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mcgrew writes " The Bush administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens .
This morning the AP reports that new DHS head Janet Napolitano has axed those plans .
'The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes .
The program , called the National Applications Office , has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns .
The program was included in the Obama administration 's 2010 budget request , according to Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department 's classified intelligence budget .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mcgrew writes "The Bush administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens.
This morning the AP reports that new DHS head Janet Napolitano has axed those plans.
'The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.
The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns.
The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439421</id>
	<title>Re:Great news, IMO</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245774120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Common do tell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,, what did you do??? Enquiring minds want to know.<br>And if you are worried about anonymity then just post as AC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Common do tell , , what did you do ? ? ?
Enquiring minds want to know.And if you are worried about anonymity then just post as AC : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common do tell ,, what did you do???
Enquiring minds want to know.And if you are worried about anonymity then just post as AC :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621</id>
	<title>It has to be said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's the big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not doing anything wrong , then what 's the big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's the big deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438629</id>
	<title>DHS should kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245770940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>DHS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DHS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DHS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439159</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245773160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay, and European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay , and European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay, and European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28448237</id>
	<title>Right, and you verify it how</title>
	<author>tuomoks</author>
	<datestamp>1245769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These announcements are kind of funny - how do you ever verify whatever they promise? These are "top secret", "for eyes only", "Heimat - oops, homeland security", "against terrorists", blah, blah systems so no public information, control, whatever needed, you can feel safe now - we don't do it!</p><p>Seriously, if they want to use all the money to track me, they are more than welcome as long as it isn't my tax money! I might allow the same as for election hold in my taxes but only if I can use the satellite tracker, our neighbor is hiding behind a fence and may be planning something evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These announcements are kind of funny - how do you ever verify whatever they promise ?
These are " top secret " , " for eyes only " , " Heimat - oops , homeland security " , " against terrorists " , blah , blah systems so no public information , control , whatever needed , you can feel safe now - we do n't do it ! Seriously , if they want to use all the money to track me , they are more than welcome as long as it is n't my tax money !
I might allow the same as for election hold in my taxes but only if I can use the satellite tracker , our neighbor is hiding behind a fence and may be planning something evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These announcements are kind of funny - how do you ever verify whatever they promise?
These are "top secret", "for eyes only", "Heimat - oops, homeland security", "against terrorists", blah, blah systems so no public information, control, whatever needed, you can feel safe now - we don't do it!Seriously, if they want to use all the money to track me, they are more than welcome as long as it isn't my tax money!
I might allow the same as for election hold in my taxes but only if I can use the satellite tracker, our neighbor is hiding behind a fence and may be planning something evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439031</id>
	<title>Re:It's Far, Far More Efficient...</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1245772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.</i></p><p>"Willing?"  Who said anything about "Willing"?  What's "Willing" got to do with anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your post makes sense , I simply do n't see Google as being willing to join that group of people. " Willing ?
" Who said anything about " Willing " ?
What 's " Willing " got to do with anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people."Willing?
"  Who said anything about "Willing"?
What's "Willing" got to do with anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28444839</id>
	<title>remember when Total Information Awareness "died"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245749880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when they pretended to kill <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total\_information\_awareness" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Total Information Awareness</a> [wikipedia.org] after public outcry, and really just <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/16741/" title="technologyreview.com" rel="nofollow">moved parts of it to NSA</a> [technologyreview.com] where it wouldn't be seen until whistleblowers came forward?</p><p>But even if Napalitano actually has managed to end this program (and good on her if she has) for now, there is this persistent authoritarian streak across a wide swath of career folks in D.C. that isn't going away.  It's going to be a constant and continuous battle to keep these people from pissing on the Bill of Rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when they pretended to kill Total Information Awareness [ wikipedia.org ] after public outcry , and really just moved parts of it to NSA [ technologyreview.com ] where it would n't be seen until whistleblowers came forward ? But even if Napalitano actually has managed to end this program ( and good on her if she has ) for now , there is this persistent authoritarian streak across a wide swath of career folks in D.C. that is n't going away .
It 's going to be a constant and continuous battle to keep these people from pissing on the Bill of Rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when they pretended to kill Total Information Awareness [wikipedia.org] after public outcry, and really just moved parts of it to NSA [technologyreview.com] where it wouldn't be seen until whistleblowers came forward?But even if Napalitano actually has managed to end this program (and good on her if she has) for now, there is this persistent authoritarian streak across a wide swath of career folks in D.C. that isn't going away.
It's going to be a constant and continuous battle to keep these people from pissing on the Bill of Rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28441617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438849</id>
	<title>Re:It's Far, Far More Efficient...</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245771960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.</p><p>Google's policies are generally the "nice guy" approach to things.  They might be powerful, but they don't like to put themselves in a situation of potentially big liability.</p><p>(just imagine, google's servers could be hacked, revealing who is where and what they're doing).  Google has enough problems trying to fend off the litigation it feels it doesn't deserve; why add to that plate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your post makes sense , I simply do n't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.Google 's policies are generally the " nice guy " approach to things .
They might be powerful , but they do n't like to put themselves in a situation of potentially big liability .
( just imagine , google 's servers could be hacked , revealing who is where and what they 're doing ) .
Google has enough problems trying to fend off the litigation it feels it does n't deserve ; why add to that plate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.Google's policies are generally the "nice guy" approach to things.
They might be powerful, but they don't like to put themselves in a situation of potentially big liability.
(just imagine, google's servers could be hacked, revealing who is where and what they're doing).
Google has enough problems trying to fend off the litigation it feels it doesn't deserve; why add to that plate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439099</id>
	<title>Re:It's Far, Far More Efficient...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245772860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because they're going to still do it themselves... just not tell anyone this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because they 're going to still do it themselves... just not tell anyone this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because they're going to still do it themselves... just not tell anyone this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439985</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy Concerns? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know those things can't see through your roof?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know those things ca n't see through your roof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know those things can't see through your roof?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438825</id>
	<title>Yeah. Sure...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was just the moment when they stopped to exist *officially*. ^^</p><p>See if can spot a satellite, spying on your country. I bet you can, and will still be able to in a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was just the moment when they stopped to exist * officially * .
^ ^ See if can spot a satellite , spying on your country .
I bet you can , and will still be able to in a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was just the moment when they stopped to exist *officially*.
^^See if can spot a satellite, spying on your country.
I bet you can, and will still be able to in a decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439565</id>
	<title>news of misdirection</title>
	<author>sbiefeld</author>
	<datestamp>1245774600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This news is just fluff and misdirection. So what if they aren't going to use satellites to watch us.  They can monitor us more easily, efficiently, and cost effectively with CCTV, red light cameras, and speeding cameras.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This news is just fluff and misdirection .
So what if they are n't going to use satellites to watch us .
They can monitor us more easily , efficiently , and cost effectively with CCTV , red light cameras , and speeding cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This news is just fluff and misdirection.
So what if they aren't going to use satellites to watch us.
They can monitor us more easily, efficiently, and cost effectively with CCTV, red light cameras, and speeding cameras.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28443187</id>
	<title>Unfortunately they must</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1245787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't WW2 America; badguys don't wear the same uniform and at least pretend to keep the Geneva Convention.  Nowdays, three men in a Dutch bar can decide they hate America (usually with media help) and come over and kill people. See also: all the attacks that have occurred in malls around the country.</p><p>Worse yet is political dissidents; I know that the Fed has no business telling the private sector people how much they will be paid (or not at all), and I think it's a rude loss of rights to have Congress and 'Buckwheat' crushing industries to control them, claiming they had nothing to do with it. "Un-checked capitalism! Bad, bad!  Must stop!"</p><p>Because of these beliefs, and my belief in God, I'm on the DHS watch list.  No, not an opinion, for those of you who never get outta the NOC. This was stated, I believe, in March or April.</p><p>How else can you transact a coup with people who don't agree? They're already bad-mouthing talk radio so they can shut IT down, as well. Seems "the enlightened" like to burn books, quash protests (see what they told you about the TEA Parties) and have their way.</p><p>Yeah, they need to keep an eye on me.  I vote, and I care for rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't WW2 America ; badguys do n't wear the same uniform and at least pretend to keep the Geneva Convention .
Nowdays , three men in a Dutch bar can decide they hate America ( usually with media help ) and come over and kill people .
See also : all the attacks that have occurred in malls around the country.Worse yet is political dissidents ; I know that the Fed has no business telling the private sector people how much they will be paid ( or not at all ) , and I think it 's a rude loss of rights to have Congress and 'Buckwheat ' crushing industries to control them , claiming they had nothing to do with it .
" Un-checked capitalism !
Bad , bad !
Must stop !
" Because of these beliefs , and my belief in God , I 'm on the DHS watch list .
No , not an opinion , for those of you who never get outta the NOC .
This was stated , I believe , in March or April.How else can you transact a coup with people who do n't agree ?
They 're already bad-mouthing talk radio so they can shut IT down , as well .
Seems " the enlightened " like to burn books , quash protests ( see what they told you about the TEA Parties ) and have their way.Yeah , they need to keep an eye on me .
I vote , and I care for rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't WW2 America; badguys don't wear the same uniform and at least pretend to keep the Geneva Convention.
Nowdays, three men in a Dutch bar can decide they hate America (usually with media help) and come over and kill people.
See also: all the attacks that have occurred in malls around the country.Worse yet is political dissidents; I know that the Fed has no business telling the private sector people how much they will be paid (or not at all), and I think it's a rude loss of rights to have Congress and 'Buckwheat' crushing industries to control them, claiming they had nothing to do with it.
"Un-checked capitalism!
Bad, bad!
Must stop!
"Because of these beliefs, and my belief in God, I'm on the DHS watch list.
No, not an opinion, for those of you who never get outta the NOC.
This was stated, I believe, in March or April.How else can you transact a coup with people who don't agree?
They're already bad-mouthing talk radio so they can shut IT down, as well.
Seems "the enlightened" like to burn books, quash protests (see what they told you about the TEA Parties) and have their way.Yeah, they need to keep an eye on me.
I vote, and I care for rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633</id>
	<title>Like targetting agreements.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think these things are as symbolic as the targetting agreements the USA used to make with the likes of Russia. "Oh, are missiles are no longer pointed at each other."  Except that, its really not too hard to change that. Similarly, if the President wants to get a picture, covertly, of USA territory, he certainly can.  It's not like the satellites don't ever fly over the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think these things are as symbolic as the targetting agreements the USA used to make with the likes of Russia .
" Oh , are missiles are no longer pointed at each other .
" Except that , its really not too hard to change that .
Similarly , if the President wants to get a picture , covertly , of USA territory , he certainly can .
It 's not like the satellites do n't ever fly over the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think these things are as symbolic as the targetting agreements the USA used to make with the likes of Russia.
"Oh, are missiles are no longer pointed at each other.
"  Except that, its really not too hard to change that.
Similarly, if the President wants to get a picture, covertly, of USA territory, he certainly can.
It's not like the satellites don't ever fly over the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438927</id>
	<title>general rule of politics...</title>
	<author>pig-power</author>
	<datestamp>1245772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems that I was taught, when the megolomaniacs speak<br>
of what they are NOT going to do?<br>
<br>
"First they deny it, then they do it!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems that I was taught , when the megolomaniacs speak of what they are NOT going to do ?
" First they deny it , then they do it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems that I was taught, when the megolomaniacs speak
of what they are NOT going to do?
"First they deny it, then they do it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439809</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245775500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides, if we want up to the minute spy surveillance on activities within our own country, we could just contract it out to those countries who already actively spy on us! I'm sure they'd be happy to loan us more of their money to finance the results of their preexisting spying resources!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , if we want up to the minute spy surveillance on activities within our own country , we could just contract it out to those countries who already actively spy on us !
I 'm sure they 'd be happy to loan us more of their money to finance the results of their preexisting spying resources !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, if we want up to the minute spy surveillance on activities within our own country, we could just contract it out to those countries who already actively spy on us!
I'm sure they'd be happy to loan us more of their money to finance the results of their preexisting spying resources!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273</id>
	<title>Re:Like targetting agreements.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interesting thing here -- and this comment is partly motivated by your sig  -- is that this killing of the domestic satellite spying program is not a liberal action but a conservative one.  If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ, here it is.  Republicans such as Peter King will say this is "a step back in the war on terror" but a real conservative would say the U.S. government never had any business spying on its citizens in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting thing here -- and this comment is partly motivated by your sig -- is that this killing of the domestic satellite spying program is not a liberal action but a conservative one .
If you need an example of where real conservatives and today 's Republicans differ , here it is .
Republicans such as Peter King will say this is " a step back in the war on terror " but a real conservative would say the U.S. government never had any business spying on its citizens in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting thing here -- and this comment is partly motivated by your sig  -- is that this killing of the domestic satellite spying program is not a liberal action but a conservative one.
If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ, here it is.
Republicans such as Peter King will say this is "a step back in the war on terror" but a real conservative would say the U.S. government never had any business spying on its citizens in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28448569</id>
	<title>Re:Like targetting agreements.</title>
	<author>i\_b\_don</author>
	<datestamp>1245772980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know... this is a very good point, that this is a huge part of what made me discount all "conservatives" as schmucks the 8 years bush was running our country into the ground.  Conservatives (at least in marketing) claim to be for a number of fundamental things, such as a smaller government, less government in our business, a balanced budget, lower taxes, etc... and they just took these ideas and pissed them into the wind and changed their ideals to support bush and his skewed vision of the world.</p><p>I'm a hardcore liberal but I can respect conservatives... REAL conservatives... not the losers who believe they're playing a sports game and always cheer for their side no matter what they do.  If you have honor and integrity you should be able to stand up and say "wait a second, that's stupid, I'm pissed off you're spying on ME" or "I'm willing to trade away some of my security in order to keep the freedoms my country stands for" or even "I want lower taxes, but damn it I want a balanced budget first!"</p><p>d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know... this is a very good point , that this is a huge part of what made me discount all " conservatives " as schmucks the 8 years bush was running our country into the ground .
Conservatives ( at least in marketing ) claim to be for a number of fundamental things , such as a smaller government , less government in our business , a balanced budget , lower taxes , etc... and they just took these ideas and pissed them into the wind and changed their ideals to support bush and his skewed vision of the world.I 'm a hardcore liberal but I can respect conservatives... REAL conservatives... not the losers who believe they 're playing a sports game and always cheer for their side no matter what they do .
If you have honor and integrity you should be able to stand up and say " wait a second , that 's stupid , I 'm pissed off you 're spying on ME " or " I 'm willing to trade away some of my security in order to keep the freedoms my country stands for " or even " I want lower taxes , but damn it I want a balanced budget first !
" d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know... this is a very good point, that this is a huge part of what made me discount all "conservatives" as schmucks the 8 years bush was running our country into the ground.
Conservatives (at least in marketing) claim to be for a number of fundamental things, such as a smaller government, less government in our business, a balanced budget, lower taxes, etc... and they just took these ideas and pissed them into the wind and changed their ideals to support bush and his skewed vision of the world.I'm a hardcore liberal but I can respect conservatives... REAL conservatives... not the losers who believe they're playing a sports game and always cheer for their side no matter what they do.
If you have honor and integrity you should be able to stand up and say "wait a second, that's stupid, I'm pissed off you're spying on ME" or "I'm willing to trade away some of my security in order to keep the freedoms my country stands for" or even "I want lower taxes, but damn it I want a balanced budget first!
"d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28445379</id>
	<title>Small correction</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1245751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request</i> </p><p>It seems the opening paragraph should have said, "The <b>Obama</b> administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens."  On the other hand, why let the facts get in the way of a good line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The program was included in the Obama administration 's 2010 budget request It seems the opening paragraph should have said , " The Obama administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens .
" On the other hand , why let the facts get in the way of a good line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request It seems the opening paragraph should have said, "The Obama administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens.
"  On the other hand, why let the facts get in the way of a good line?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28445439</id>
	<title>The terrorists have truly won!</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1245752040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The terrorists have won!</p><p>Janet Napolitano -- fresh from her attempt to persecute conservatives -- has now waved the white flag of defeat at the terrorists of the world, letting them know that they can do whatever they like while in America, and <b>no one will know about it</b>. This is a sad, sad day for Real Americans(tm). [/CONSERVATIVESTRAWMAN]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The terrorists have won ! Janet Napolitano -- fresh from her attempt to persecute conservatives -- has now waved the white flag of defeat at the terrorists of the world , letting them know that they can do whatever they like while in America , and no one will know about it .
This is a sad , sad day for Real Americans ( tm ) .
[ /CONSERVATIVESTRAWMAN ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terrorists have won!Janet Napolitano -- fresh from her attempt to persecute conservatives -- has now waved the white flag of defeat at the terrorists of the world, letting them know that they can do whatever they like while in America, and no one will know about it.
This is a sad, sad day for Real Americans(tm).
[/CONSERVATIVESTRAWMAN]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439259</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1245773460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country.</i></p><p>What?  And ruin the premises of many popular television programs?  If we had nothing to watch but Dancing with the Stars, lame-assed pseudo reality shows, and similarly lame comedy, we'd have nothing to do.  And what about films?  Or white guys who like guns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...conspiracy theory buffs?</p><p>Sounds to me like you want to weaken our government.  If that happens, the terrorists win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country.What ?
And ruin the premises of many popular television programs ?
If we had nothing to watch but Dancing with the Stars , lame-assed pseudo reality shows , and similarly lame comedy , we 'd have nothing to do .
And what about films ?
Or white guys who like guns ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H...conspiracy theory buffs ? Sounds to me like you want to weaken our government .
If that happens , the terrorists win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country.What?
And ruin the premises of many popular television programs?
If we had nothing to watch but Dancing with the Stars, lame-assed pseudo reality shows, and similarly lame comedy, we'd have nothing to do.
And what about films?
Or white guys who like guns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...conspiracy theory buffs?Sounds to me like you want to weaken our government.
If that happens, the terrorists win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439049</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay, and a maximum of 65\% for Obama is okay.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay , and a maximum of 65 \ % for Obama is okay .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay, and a maximum of 65\% for Obama is okay.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440799</id>
	<title>Re:It has to be said</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1245779220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if you aren't smuggling heroin up your ass, you won't mind an anal probe every single day from the DEA, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you are n't smuggling heroin up your ass , you wo n't mind an anal probe every single day from the DEA , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you aren't smuggling heroin up your ass, you won't mind an anal probe every single day from the DEA, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438761</id>
	<title>more use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Food for thought:</p><p>The best way to maximise the power of these would be to use them day to day.  The more comfortable and accurate we can make it on the common stuff, the better the technology will be when we need it for something more serious.</p><p>On that note, where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Food for thought : The best way to maximise the power of these would be to use them day to day .
The more comfortable and accurate we can make it on the common stuff , the better the technology will be when we need it for something more serious.On that note , where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food for thought:The best way to maximise the power of these would be to use them day to day.
The more comfortable and accurate we can make it on the common stuff, the better the technology will be when we need it for something more serious.On that note, where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439365</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1245773880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws.</p></div><p>Imagine accidentally leaking classified operating parameters of our spy satellites in a (relatively) minor domestic case.  And I doubt any prosecutor would want to rely on this kind of information.  The defense could just claim that some classified parameters were needed to mount an effective defense, then the judge throws the evidence out when it's clear that they can't do that</p><p>Too much cost for too little payoff, even beyond the fundamental disagreement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws.Imagine accidentally leaking classified operating parameters of our spy satellites in a ( relatively ) minor domestic case .
And I doubt any prosecutor would want to rely on this kind of information .
The defense could just claim that some classified parameters were needed to mount an effective defense , then the judge throws the evidence out when it 's clear that they ca n't do thatToo much cost for too little payoff , even beyond the fundamental disagreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws.Imagine accidentally leaking classified operating parameters of our spy satellites in a (relatively) minor domestic case.
And I doubt any prosecutor would want to rely on this kind of information.
The defense could just claim that some classified parameters were needed to mount an effective defense, then the judge throws the evidence out when it's clear that they can't do thatToo much cost for too little payoff, even beyond the fundamental disagreement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439419</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better answer is to allow these things to enforce laws, but for things like speeding or jaywalking place limits.  For example, while I personally have no problems with unmarked cars and absolutely do not believe that using them amounts to entrapment (the unmarked cars did nothing to cause you to speed), the state I live in has said that a police car must be 3/4th visible at the time they clock you.  I know they do use planes and I'm not sure how that works, but just place limits on what can be used when instead of outright banning it.</p><p>I know they spent almost three years before they got an arrest warrant on one of my neighbors in the 90's.  He went from smuggling illegal immigrants to dealing drugs in a neighborhood where locking your doors was unheard of, but just in case your neighbors all had keys so that if you were on vacation and something happened or if you house burned down you could use their phone.  Originally, they would unload the drugs in the garage, then they had too many cars, so they would do it in the driveway, then it progressed to them parking cars on the street (usually 3-5), take off the tires (the rubber throws off dogs), unload the drugs, and put them back on.  Our neighbors started begging the police for help, and all we were told was write down everything.  So they did, and the police would come about every other day to remove the 2-8 stolen cars parked out front and they ran every plate of a vehicle that drove down the street, but they couldn't find anything solid enough for a search warrent.</p><p>After discharging a pistol in the middle of the street (he was aiming at his GF and her 2 year old son, but was too high to come close), he tried riding after them on his motorcycle and crashed in his drive way.  Since he was bleeding, the police were obligated to ask if his home was safe for him, and when he said he didn't know they were obligated to search it in order to ensure there was no threat to him.  When they did, they could seize anything illegal in plain sight.  I personally witnessed at least three trunk full's of drugs and guns removed from the house.  Unfortunately, chain of custody was screwed up so they couldn't get either a search or arrest warrant.</p><p>About 18 months later, my neighbor called the police saying his driveway was blocked, that it wasn't a big deal, but we were told to call on anything small.  A squad car was able to respond, they asked my neighbor about it, and then approach the drug house to see if the owner was there.  Right as they reached the door, a man opened the door, walked out and right in the officers.  I believe he fell to the ground, but in the process some crack fell out of his pockets.  That was finally enough to get a search warrant (though it still took a couple months) and by the time they could execute it, he had been gone for about 2 weeks due to a price being put on his head (he was using too much and dealing too little).</p><p>Now I've left out some of the details about how since we were an influential neighborhood ( a couple of lawyers with political connections) they semi-abused the law (they used some government employees for surveillance; the technicality is they weren't told to go there for surveillance as that's illegal but what they happen to see is admissible in court as if a police officer saw it).  FOr our part, FBI agents flew in from DC to thank us since it lead to over 90 arrest warrants since they could trace the chain and get the higher ups not just the street dealers which are replaced almost instantly.  IN cases like that, I would have no problems with them using satellites and what not instead of either letting them get away with it (like they would have in most neighborhoods) or abusing the system (like they did for us).  ESPECIALLY, if it meant they could speed up some of those processes.  I have no problems with guns (nor did the police; they asked if it was one of the other neighbors first and explicitly said they didn't care if he discharged weapons as we technically were in city limits, but practically speaking weren't) and I don't support our current drug policies, but there are some people they need to put in jail or receive SERIOUS counseling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better answer is to allow these things to enforce laws , but for things like speeding or jaywalking place limits .
For example , while I personally have no problems with unmarked cars and absolutely do not believe that using them amounts to entrapment ( the unmarked cars did nothing to cause you to speed ) , the state I live in has said that a police car must be 3/4th visible at the time they clock you .
I know they do use planes and I 'm not sure how that works , but just place limits on what can be used when instead of outright banning it.I know they spent almost three years before they got an arrest warrant on one of my neighbors in the 90 's .
He went from smuggling illegal immigrants to dealing drugs in a neighborhood where locking your doors was unheard of , but just in case your neighbors all had keys so that if you were on vacation and something happened or if you house burned down you could use their phone .
Originally , they would unload the drugs in the garage , then they had too many cars , so they would do it in the driveway , then it progressed to them parking cars on the street ( usually 3-5 ) , take off the tires ( the rubber throws off dogs ) , unload the drugs , and put them back on .
Our neighbors started begging the police for help , and all we were told was write down everything .
So they did , and the police would come about every other day to remove the 2-8 stolen cars parked out front and they ran every plate of a vehicle that drove down the street , but they could n't find anything solid enough for a search warrent.After discharging a pistol in the middle of the street ( he was aiming at his GF and her 2 year old son , but was too high to come close ) , he tried riding after them on his motorcycle and crashed in his drive way .
Since he was bleeding , the police were obligated to ask if his home was safe for him , and when he said he did n't know they were obligated to search it in order to ensure there was no threat to him .
When they did , they could seize anything illegal in plain sight .
I personally witnessed at least three trunk full 's of drugs and guns removed from the house .
Unfortunately , chain of custody was screwed up so they could n't get either a search or arrest warrant.About 18 months later , my neighbor called the police saying his driveway was blocked , that it was n't a big deal , but we were told to call on anything small .
A squad car was able to respond , they asked my neighbor about it , and then approach the drug house to see if the owner was there .
Right as they reached the door , a man opened the door , walked out and right in the officers .
I believe he fell to the ground , but in the process some crack fell out of his pockets .
That was finally enough to get a search warrant ( though it still took a couple months ) and by the time they could execute it , he had been gone for about 2 weeks due to a price being put on his head ( he was using too much and dealing too little ) .Now I 've left out some of the details about how since we were an influential neighborhood ( a couple of lawyers with political connections ) they semi-abused the law ( they used some government employees for surveillance ; the technicality is they were n't told to go there for surveillance as that 's illegal but what they happen to see is admissible in court as if a police officer saw it ) .
FOr our part , FBI agents flew in from DC to thank us since it lead to over 90 arrest warrants since they could trace the chain and get the higher ups not just the street dealers which are replaced almost instantly .
IN cases like that , I would have no problems with them using satellites and what not instead of either letting them get away with it ( like they would have in most neighborhoods ) or abusing the system ( like they did for us ) .
ESPECIALLY , if it meant they could speed up some of those processes .
I have no problems with guns ( nor did the police ; they asked if it was one of the other neighbors first and explicitly said they did n't care if he discharged weapons as we technically were in city limits , but practically speaking were n't ) and I do n't support our current drug policies , but there are some people they need to put in jail or receive SERIOUS counseling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better answer is to allow these things to enforce laws, but for things like speeding or jaywalking place limits.
For example, while I personally have no problems with unmarked cars and absolutely do not believe that using them amounts to entrapment (the unmarked cars did nothing to cause you to speed), the state I live in has said that a police car must be 3/4th visible at the time they clock you.
I know they do use planes and I'm not sure how that works, but just place limits on what can be used when instead of outright banning it.I know they spent almost three years before they got an arrest warrant on one of my neighbors in the 90's.
He went from smuggling illegal immigrants to dealing drugs in a neighborhood where locking your doors was unheard of, but just in case your neighbors all had keys so that if you were on vacation and something happened or if you house burned down you could use their phone.
Originally, they would unload the drugs in the garage, then they had too many cars, so they would do it in the driveway, then it progressed to them parking cars on the street (usually 3-5), take off the tires (the rubber throws off dogs), unload the drugs, and put them back on.
Our neighbors started begging the police for help, and all we were told was write down everything.
So they did, and the police would come about every other day to remove the 2-8 stolen cars parked out front and they ran every plate of a vehicle that drove down the street, but they couldn't find anything solid enough for a search warrent.After discharging a pistol in the middle of the street (he was aiming at his GF and her 2 year old son, but was too high to come close), he tried riding after them on his motorcycle and crashed in his drive way.
Since he was bleeding, the police were obligated to ask if his home was safe for him, and when he said he didn't know they were obligated to search it in order to ensure there was no threat to him.
When they did, they could seize anything illegal in plain sight.
I personally witnessed at least three trunk full's of drugs and guns removed from the house.
Unfortunately, chain of custody was screwed up so they couldn't get either a search or arrest warrant.About 18 months later, my neighbor called the police saying his driveway was blocked, that it wasn't a big deal, but we were told to call on anything small.
A squad car was able to respond, they asked my neighbor about it, and then approach the drug house to see if the owner was there.
Right as they reached the door, a man opened the door, walked out and right in the officers.
I believe he fell to the ground, but in the process some crack fell out of his pockets.
That was finally enough to get a search warrant (though it still took a couple months) and by the time they could execute it, he had been gone for about 2 weeks due to a price being put on his head (he was using too much and dealing too little).Now I've left out some of the details about how since we were an influential neighborhood ( a couple of lawyers with political connections) they semi-abused the law (they used some government employees for surveillance; the technicality is they weren't told to go there for surveillance as that's illegal but what they happen to see is admissible in court as if a police officer saw it).
FOr our part, FBI agents flew in from DC to thank us since it lead to over 90 arrest warrants since they could trace the chain and get the higher ups not just the street dealers which are replaced almost instantly.
IN cases like that, I would have no problems with them using satellites and what not instead of either letting them get away with it (like they would have in most neighborhoods) or abusing the system (like they did for us).
ESPECIALLY, if it meant they could speed up some of those processes.
I have no problems with guns (nor did the police; they asked if it was one of the other neighbors first and explicitly said they didn't care if he discharged weapons as we technically were in city limits, but practically speaking weren't) and I don't support our current drug policies, but there are some people they need to put in jail or receive SERIOUS counseling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439595</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1245774720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cant AWACS overland actually track speeders, once they go fast enough to make it show up on the computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant AWACS overland actually track speeders , once they go fast enough to make it show up on the computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant AWACS overland actually track speeders, once they go fast enough to make it show up on the computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442263</id>
	<title>Re:Yeh, right</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA works for the President, as does the DHS since they're both executive branch. If DHS wants it stopped and convinces the President (who I'm sure had some input on the situation) then yes, it does matter to the NSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA works for the President , as does the DHS since they 're both executive branch .
If DHS wants it stopped and convinces the President ( who I 'm sure had some input on the situation ) then yes , it does matter to the NSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA works for the President, as does the DHS since they're both executive branch.
If DHS wants it stopped and convinces the President (who I'm sure had some input on the situation) then yes, it does matter to the NSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439549</id>
	<title>Yeh, right</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1245774540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the NSA cares what she wants stopped</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the NSA cares what she wants stopped</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the NSA cares what she wants stopped</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438995</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245772500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But jaywalking is a federal issue, it ummm effects the children, or is a terrorist act, or something like that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But jaywalking is a federal issue , it ummm effects the children , or is a terrorist act , or something like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But jaywalking is a federal issue, it ummm effects the children, or is a terrorist act, or something like that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439725</id>
	<title>Re:Great news, IMO</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245775020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A problem with camera surveillance, is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view, so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious.</i></p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/~sm62704/journal/193372" title="slashdot.org">I and my car were searched</a> [slashdot.org] for parking in front of the wrong house. Two local cops, two FBI agents, and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask (in July in Illinois) came out with guns drawn. Not fun at all. Luckily there were no drugs, and they let us go after an hour or so.</p><p><i>There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago.</i></p><p>The media sure didn't draw much attention to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A problem with camera surveillance , is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view , so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious.I and my car were searched [ slashdot.org ] for parking in front of the wrong house .
Two local cops , two FBI agents , and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask ( in July in Illinois ) came out with guns drawn .
Not fun at all .
Luckily there were no drugs , and they let us go after an hour or so.There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago.The media sure did n't draw much attention to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A problem with camera surveillance, is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view, so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious.I and my car were searched [slashdot.org] for parking in front of the wrong house.
Two local cops, two FBI agents, and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask (in July in Illinois) came out with guns drawn.
Not fun at all.
Luckily there were no drugs, and they let us go after an hour or so.There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago.The media sure didn't draw much attention to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438807</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245771720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are responsible for what happens within our own country.  The DHS is responsible for knowing what happens within our own country.</p><p>I agree that domestic spying isn't the way to go; after all, we should be able to earn the trust of the people within our nation.</p><p>I'm not fond of police state policies.  After all, it focuses too much power in one location, and power breeds corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are responsible for what happens within our own country .
The DHS is responsible for knowing what happens within our own country.I agree that domestic spying is n't the way to go ; after all , we should be able to earn the trust of the people within our nation.I 'm not fond of police state policies .
After all , it focuses too much power in one location , and power breeds corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are responsible for what happens within our own country.
The DHS is responsible for knowing what happens within our own country.I agree that domestic spying isn't the way to go; after all, we should be able to earn the trust of the people within our nation.I'm not fond of police state policies.
After all, it focuses too much power in one location, and power breeds corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439351</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy Concerns? Really?</title>
	<author>jdunn14</author>
	<datestamp>1245773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine I have a 7 foot (or higher) privacy fence around my back yard.  I have an expectation of privacy.  Or I happen to own 150 acres in the middle of nowhere.  I have less, but still some, expectation of privacy there as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine I have a 7 foot ( or higher ) privacy fence around my back yard .
I have an expectation of privacy .
Or I happen to own 150 acres in the middle of nowhere .
I have less , but still some , expectation of privacy there as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine I have a 7 foot (or higher) privacy fence around my back yard.
I have an expectation of privacy.
Or I happen to own 150 acres in the middle of nowhere.
I have less, but still some, expectation of privacy there as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438897</id>
	<title>Kill it?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just blacken it so that privacy and rights concerns will become moot?  Cant complain about what you don't know about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just blacken it so that privacy and rights concerns will become moot ?
Cant complain about what you do n't know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just blacken it so that privacy and rights concerns will become moot?
Cant complain about what you don't know about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439627</id>
	<title>Shell Game</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1245774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are killing the program the public is aware of, but the satellites will continue to operate over the USA. The data will still be collected. The data or analysis of the data will still be forwarded to law enforcement using a mechanism that obscures the origin of the data (info laundering?). There just won't be an official federal program for law suits to target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are killing the program the public is aware of , but the satellites will continue to operate over the USA .
The data will still be collected .
The data or analysis of the data will still be forwarded to law enforcement using a mechanism that obscures the origin of the data ( info laundering ? ) .
There just wo n't be an official federal program for law suits to target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are killing the program the public is aware of, but the satellites will continue to operate over the USA.
The data will still be collected.
The data or analysis of the data will still be forwarded to law enforcement using a mechanism that obscures the origin of the data (info laundering?).
There just won't be an official federal program for law suits to target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440383</id>
	<title>Re:So the real story is...</title>
	<author>NatasRevol</author>
	<datestamp>1245777840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bush was the one who's administration tried to get it started...</p><p>But just ignore that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush was the one who 's administration tried to get it started...But just ignore that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush was the one who's administration tried to get it started...But just ignore that fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28441617</id>
	<title>Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>horatio</author>
	<datestamp>1245782220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't start cheering how great DHS is just yet, because while they're simultaneously talking about killing this program, they're putting UAV drones in the air.

<a href="http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story/Homeland-Security-drone-patrolling-NNY/8ujqf9M2YkCXVlOmBVxFOg.cspx" title="newswatch50.com">http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story/Homeland-Security-drone-patrolling-NNY/8ujqf9M2YkCXVlOmBVxFOg.cspx</a> [newswatch50.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't start cheering how great DHS is just yet , because while they 're simultaneously talking about killing this program , they 're putting UAV drones in the air .
http : //www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story/Homeland-Security-drone-patrolling-NNY/8ujqf9M2YkCXVlOmBVxFOg.cspx [ newswatch50.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't start cheering how great DHS is just yet, because while they're simultaneously talking about killing this program, they're putting UAV drones in the air.
http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story/Homeland-Security-drone-patrolling-NNY/8ujqf9M2YkCXVlOmBVxFOg.cspx [newswatch50.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703</id>
	<title>It's Far, Far More Efficient...</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1245771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to contract with Google to do it for them.</p><p>Why build when you can outsource?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to contract with Google to do it for them.Why build when you can outsource ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to contract with Google to do it for them.Why build when you can outsource?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439537</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>ragutis</author>
	<datestamp>1245774480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I kinda question the utility of this.<br>The satellites that are close enough to get enough resolution for this<br>essentially take snapshots of whatever the window is for<br>a given satellite.  so,</p><p>In real time, they'd need to know the location of the target, and have some available for targeting.<br>Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to have meat intelligence on the ground watch the target?</p><p>For history, just the management of the information would be an expensive trick.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Ok, here's an obvious nuclear reactor in Elizabeth, NJ."<br>
&nbsp; Or, can I read the license plate on that car at 4:30 PM<br>on December 21 in Anchorage.</p><p>How many analysts does it take to locate a terrorist lightbulb?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>        I kinda question the utility of this.The satellites that are close enough to get enough resolution for thisessentially take snapshots of whatever the window is fora given satellite .
so,In real time , they 'd need to know the location of the target , and have some available for targeting.Would n't it be simpler and cheaper to have meat intelligence on the ground watch the target ? For history , just the management of the information would be an expensive trick .
    " Ok , here 's an obvious nuclear reactor in Elizabeth , NJ .
"   Or , can I read the license plate on that car at 4 : 30 PMon December 21 in Anchorage.How many analysts does it take to locate a terrorist lightbulb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
        I kinda question the utility of this.The satellites that are close enough to get enough resolution for thisessentially take snapshots of whatever the window is fora given satellite.
so,In real time, they'd need to know the location of the target, and have some available for targeting.Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to have meat intelligence on the ground watch the target?For history, just the management of the information would be an expensive trick.
    "Ok, here's an obvious nuclear reactor in Elizabeth, NJ.
"
  Or, can I read the license plate on that car at 4:30 PMon December 21 in Anchorage.How many analysts does it take to locate a terrorist lightbulb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439041</id>
	<title>interesting.</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1245772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to make the observation without judging that for a government it's no problem to spy on "them", but they can't spy on "us".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to make the observation without judging that for a government it 's no problem to spy on " them " , but they ca n't spy on " us " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to make the observation without judging that for a government it's no problem to spy on "them", but they can't spy on "us".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440883</id>
	<title>Re:So the real story is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245779640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scrub.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scrub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scrub.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438909</id>
	<title>In the Name of National Security</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1245772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>DHS can probably secretly fund Google to develop a realtime Google Maps/Earth app.<br><br>All in the name of national security of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DHS can probably secretly fund Google to develop a realtime Google Maps/Earth app.All in the name of national security of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DHS can probably secretly fund Google to develop a realtime Google Maps/Earth app.All in the name of national security of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439255</id>
	<title>Fires and Hurricanes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245773460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't complain any more about using all resources available for the next series of forest fires and hurricane disaster recovery operations.  I am sure Google streetview will suffice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't complain any more about using all resources available for the next series of forest fires and hurricane disaster recovery operations .
I am sure Google streetview will suffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't complain any more about using all resources available for the next series of forest fires and hurricane disaster recovery operations.
I am sure Google streetview will suffice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440037</id>
	<title>From what I have heard</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245776520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... overhead and mapping imagery <b>from existing satellites</b> for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.."</p><p>From what I have heard from certain people, they already have been doing this since Regan. The largest use for this was domestically was tracking the drug trade including but not limited to:</p><p>Large distribution rings by tracking differential images for trafficing patterns (e.g. large number of cars at 2 am at a pier that only stick around for a hour or two)</p><p>Using the IR module for finding growers in remote areas with camoed green houses.</p><p>Using the information to track abnormal warehouse activity.</p><p>Spying seems a slanted term since the cops don't SPY on people, they investigate. Same with the FBI and ATF.</p><p>So what we really have is DHS decides for what appear to be largely buget issues, not taking the information, THAT IS ALREADY BEING COLLECTED, and using it for DHS purposes. Since the DHS is a new agency they probably didn't have access to that data. This sounds largely like a formality to get them access to the data. Now the DHS will have to step through the FBI and local law enforcement channels which was the whole reason we created the DHS in the first place.</p><p>Seriously, this amounts to "The cops can use it, the FBI can use it, but the 'new' intelligence community can't." Here contract a plane to get your imagining instead.</p><p>If there was a privacy issue why not raise it when ATF raids a pot grower? Why now and not under Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2? And why no outcry over the fact it has been used for years already? Surely the use of images from those darn helicopters and airplanes must be a privacy conern also? Right? You know those images you can get from the county and local city... Hello? Sensible Dissent where are you? (in my best Shaggy impersonation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.. " From what I have heard from certain people , they already have been doing this since Regan .
The largest use for this was domestically was tracking the drug trade including but not limited to : Large distribution rings by tracking differential images for trafficing patterns ( e.g .
large number of cars at 2 am at a pier that only stick around for a hour or two ) Using the IR module for finding growers in remote areas with camoed green houses.Using the information to track abnormal warehouse activity.Spying seems a slanted term since the cops do n't SPY on people , they investigate .
Same with the FBI and ATF.So what we really have is DHS decides for what appear to be largely buget issues , not taking the information , THAT IS ALREADY BEING COLLECTED , and using it for DHS purposes .
Since the DHS is a new agency they probably did n't have access to that data .
This sounds largely like a formality to get them access to the data .
Now the DHS will have to step through the FBI and local law enforcement channels which was the whole reason we created the DHS in the first place.Seriously , this amounts to " The cops can use it , the FBI can use it , but the 'new ' intelligence community ca n't .
" Here contract a plane to get your imagining instead.If there was a privacy issue why not raise it when ATF raids a pot grower ?
Why now and not under Regan , Bush 1 , Clinton , Bush 2 ?
And why no outcry over the fact it has been used for years already ?
Surely the use of images from those darn helicopters and airplanes must be a privacy conern also ?
Right ? You know those images you can get from the county and local city... Hello ? Sensible Dissent where are you ?
( in my best Shaggy impersonation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.."From what I have heard from certain people, they already have been doing this since Regan.
The largest use for this was domestically was tracking the drug trade including but not limited to:Large distribution rings by tracking differential images for trafficing patterns (e.g.
large number of cars at 2 am at a pier that only stick around for a hour or two)Using the IR module for finding growers in remote areas with camoed green houses.Using the information to track abnormal warehouse activity.Spying seems a slanted term since the cops don't SPY on people, they investigate.
Same with the FBI and ATF.So what we really have is DHS decides for what appear to be largely buget issues, not taking the information, THAT IS ALREADY BEING COLLECTED, and using it for DHS purposes.
Since the DHS is a new agency they probably didn't have access to that data.
This sounds largely like a formality to get them access to the data.
Now the DHS will have to step through the FBI and local law enforcement channels which was the whole reason we created the DHS in the first place.Seriously, this amounts to "The cops can use it, the FBI can use it, but the 'new' intelligence community can't.
" Here contract a plane to get your imagining instead.If there was a privacy issue why not raise it when ATF raids a pot grower?
Why now and not under Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2?
And why no outcry over the fact it has been used for years already?
Surely the use of images from those darn helicopters and airplanes must be a privacy conern also?
Right? You know those images you can get from the county and local city... Hello? Sensible Dissent where are you?
(in my best Shaggy impersonation).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438885</id>
	<title>Maybe not so good?</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1245772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer to think of law enforcement as a good thing.  If we can cut the costs of law enforcement personell (which, by the way, can be more easiliy corruptable) and use more effecient methods to enforce the laws we have, then I think we should.  If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding, then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye. <br> <br> But more to the point, I don't think it's fair that Americans expect their government to do everything for them and blame the leadership when a terrorist attack is successful and then complain when the DOD actually tries to improve their surveillance, with VERY LITTLE infringement on your privacy at that. <br> <br>  One more comment:  I am actually scared the way our country is going that it is starting to make personal convictions a criminal offense (go religious freedom), so perhaps what the DHS has done here is actually a good thing despite my general opinion of government surveillance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to think of law enforcement as a good thing .
If we can cut the costs of law enforcement personell ( which , by the way , can be more easiliy corruptable ) and use more effecient methods to enforce the laws we have , then I think we should .
If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding , then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye .
But more to the point , I do n't think it 's fair that Americans expect their government to do everything for them and blame the leadership when a terrorist attack is successful and then complain when the DOD actually tries to improve their surveillance , with VERY LITTLE infringement on your privacy at that .
One more comment : I am actually scared the way our country is going that it is starting to make personal convictions a criminal offense ( go religious freedom ) , so perhaps what the DHS has done here is actually a good thing despite my general opinion of government surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to think of law enforcement as a good thing.
If we can cut the costs of law enforcement personell (which, by the way, can be more easiliy corruptable) and use more effecient methods to enforce the laws we have, then I think we should.
If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding, then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye.
But more to the point, I don't think it's fair that Americans expect their government to do everything for them and blame the leadership when a terrorist attack is successful and then complain when the DOD actually tries to improve their surveillance, with VERY LITTLE infringement on your privacy at that.
One more comment:  I am actually scared the way our country is going that it is starting to make personal convictions a criminal offense (go religious freedom), so perhaps what the DHS has done here is actually a good thing despite my general opinion of government surveillance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442861</id>
	<title>Re:Like targetting agreements.</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1245786360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>rofl...there are no "real" conservatives left.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rofl...there are no " real " conservatives left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rofl...there are no "real" conservatives left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country.  They have too much money to spend on this sort of thing.  Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws.  Traffic tickets being issued because a satellite saw you going too fast, or jaywalking.  Obviously I'm going for histrionics here, but it's a slippery slope once you take away the absolute prohibition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country .
They have too much money to spend on this sort of thing .
Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws .
Traffic tickets being issued because a satellite saw you going too fast , or jaywalking .
Obviously I 'm going for histrionics here , but it 's a slippery slope once you take away the absolute prohibition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country.
They have too much money to spend on this sort of thing.
Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws.
Traffic tickets being issued because a satellite saw you going too fast, or jaywalking.
Obviously I'm going for histrionics here, but it's a slippery slope once you take away the absolute prohibition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439035</id>
	<title>Jack Bauer will be angry...</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is Chloe supposed to track the terrorists?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Chloe supposed to track the terrorists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Chloe supposed to track the terrorists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089</id>
	<title>Privacy Concerns? Really?</title>
	<author>astrodoom</author>
	<datestamp>1245772800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't realize that what I did outside was private.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't realize that what I did outside was private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't realize that what I did outside was private.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439569</id>
	<title>Re:more use</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1245774600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On that note, where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house?</p></div></blockquote><p>I saw a live-action documentary about tinfoil-hatted houses on Broadway... <br> <br>I think it was called "LOLCat on a Hot Tin Roof" or something.  Google it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On that note , where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house ? I saw a live-action documentary about tinfoil-hatted houses on Broadway... I think it was called " LOLCat on a Hot Tin Roof " or something .
Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On that note, where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house?I saw a live-action documentary about tinfoil-hatted houses on Broadway...  I think it was called "LOLCat on a Hot Tin Roof" or something.
Google it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442531</id>
	<title>Re:It has to be said</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245785280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you didn't bother to read the comments, many of which are from innocent people who were arrested, one newspaper article I linked about two crooked cops planting evidence, and one referencing a wikipedia article about an innocent woman who was shot by the police before they planted drugs on her.</p><p>According to the wiki articke, those cops are now in prison where they belong. But this should have two lessons for you:</p><ol> <li>Innocent people get arrested all the time</li><li>read the comments before showing your cowardly anonymous ignorance.</li></ol><p>Or were you just trolling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you did n't bother to read the comments , many of which are from innocent people who were arrested , one newspaper article I linked about two crooked cops planting evidence , and one referencing a wikipedia article about an innocent woman who was shot by the police before they planted drugs on her.According to the wiki articke , those cops are now in prison where they belong .
But this should have two lessons for you : Innocent people get arrested all the timeread the comments before showing your cowardly anonymous ignorance.Or were you just trolling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you didn't bother to read the comments, many of which are from innocent people who were arrested, one newspaper article I linked about two crooked cops planting evidence, and one referencing a wikipedia article about an innocent woman who was shot by the police before they planted drugs on her.According to the wiki articke, those cops are now in prison where they belong.
But this should have two lessons for you: Innocent people get arrested all the timeread the comments before showing your cowardly anonymous ignorance.Or were you just trolling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442313</id>
	<title>Re:So the real story is...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245784500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now that we are straight on this particular issue, let the Bush bashing begin.</i></p><p>Even though I consider Bush to be the worst President in my lifetime (and I voted for Nixon, the crook) I'd rather not. He lost. I don't want to hear from or about him or Cheney again. They should both just STFU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we are straight on this particular issue , let the Bush bashing begin.Even though I consider Bush to be the worst President in my lifetime ( and I voted for Nixon , the crook ) I 'd rather not .
He lost .
I do n't want to hear from or about him or Cheney again .
They should both just STFU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we are straight on this particular issue, let the Bush bashing begin.Even though I consider Bush to be the worst President in my lifetime (and I voted for Nixon, the crook) I'd rather not.
He lost.
I don't want to hear from or about him or Cheney again.
They should both just STFU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439781</id>
	<title>Re:DHS should kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245775320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kill President North Korea Iran Bomb Assassinate Murder White House Congress Senator Obama Allah Allah Peace Upon Name Fuse Sulfur Fertilizer</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill President North Korea Iran Bomb Assassinate Murder White House Congress Senator Obama Allah Allah Peace Upon Name Fuse Sulfur Fertilizer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill President North Korea Iran Bomb Assassinate Murder White House Congress Senator Obama Allah Allah Peace Upon Name Fuse Sulfur Fertilizer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438767</id>
	<title>So the publicly known plans have been axed...</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1245771540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they axe the publicly known plan...</p><p>I wonder just how much more intrusive the "secret" plans that will take the public plans will be.</p><p>Politicians are politicians, parties don't matter when power is on the line. A politician won't give up power unless it is to get ever more power. This publicity stunt just gets them good press for awhile until the other shoe drops which will conveniently happen just after the re-election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they axe the publicly known plan...I wonder just how much more intrusive the " secret " plans that will take the public plans will be.Politicians are politicians , parties do n't matter when power is on the line .
A politician wo n't give up power unless it is to get ever more power .
This publicity stunt just gets them good press for awhile until the other shoe drops which will conveniently happen just after the re-election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they axe the publicly known plan...I wonder just how much more intrusive the "secret" plans that will take the public plans will be.Politicians are politicians, parties don't matter when power is on the line.
A politician won't give up power unless it is to get ever more power.
This publicity stunt just gets them good press for awhile until the other shoe drops which will conveniently happen just after the re-election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28441599</id>
	<title>Misleading headline</title>
	<author>Intron</author>
	<datestamp>1245782160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should be:  "DHS Claims to be Killing the Domestic Satellite Spying Program"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be : " DHS Claims to be Killing the Domestic Satellite Spying Program "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be:  "DHS Claims to be Killing the Domestic Satellite Spying Program"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442141</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy Concerns? Really?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1245783900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I assign a team of skilled operatives to follow you at 500 yards using telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones from the moment you leave your door to the moment you reenter, that's cool, right? And you would trust me not to get a little extra data through your windows if you ever leave a curtain undrawn, because by buying into your definition, I've said I'd stop at the edge of inside? But I'm not going to use millimeter wave GSR, because that technology crosses outside/inside lines as if they didn't exist. (Or does inside mean a stone house but not a wood frame? Maybe only people rich enough to afford re-bar and concrete construction should be allowed a right to privacy).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The bigger question is "Why would you NOT realize that what you did outside can still be private?". Do you really think all the people who have an eight foot fence around their backyard pool have no right to swim naked? I mean, they are being publicly indecent if you just prop a ladder up against the fence, or fly over in a hang-glider with a good pair of binoculars. If privacy doesn't extend at all to the outside, I can open your mail if you haven't yet brought it in. If you've lived long enough to be an adult, you should have run across thousands of examples such as these that prove at least some types of privacy do apply to the outside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I assign a team of skilled operatives to follow you at 500 yards using telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones from the moment you leave your door to the moment you reenter , that 's cool , right ?
And you would trust me not to get a little extra data through your windows if you ever leave a curtain undrawn , because by buying into your definition , I 've said I 'd stop at the edge of inside ?
But I 'm not going to use millimeter wave GSR , because that technology crosses outside/inside lines as if they did n't exist .
( Or does inside mean a stone house but not a wood frame ?
Maybe only people rich enough to afford re-bar and concrete construction should be allowed a right to privacy ) .
      The bigger question is " Why would you NOT realize that what you did outside can still be private ? " .
Do you really think all the people who have an eight foot fence around their backyard pool have no right to swim naked ?
I mean , they are being publicly indecent if you just prop a ladder up against the fence , or fly over in a hang-glider with a good pair of binoculars .
If privacy does n't extend at all to the outside , I can open your mail if you have n't yet brought it in .
If you 've lived long enough to be an adult , you should have run across thousands of examples such as these that prove at least some types of privacy do apply to the outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I assign a team of skilled operatives to follow you at 500 yards using telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones from the moment you leave your door to the moment you reenter, that's cool, right?
And you would trust me not to get a little extra data through your windows if you ever leave a curtain undrawn, because by buying into your definition, I've said I'd stop at the edge of inside?
But I'm not going to use millimeter wave GSR, because that technology crosses outside/inside lines as if they didn't exist.
(Or does inside mean a stone house but not a wood frame?
Maybe only people rich enough to afford re-bar and concrete construction should be allowed a right to privacy).
      The bigger question is "Why would you NOT realize that what you did outside can still be private?".
Do you really think all the people who have an eight foot fence around their backyard pool have no right to swim naked?
I mean, they are being publicly indecent if you just prop a ladder up against the fence, or fly over in a hang-glider with a good pair of binoculars.
If privacy doesn't extend at all to the outside, I can open your mail if you haven't yet brought it in.
If you've lived long enough to be an adult, you should have run across thousands of examples such as these that prove at least some types of privacy do apply to the outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919</id>
	<title>So the real story is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title would be less exciting if it read "Bush and Obama has never used satellites to spy on Americans".</p><p>Bush didn't use spy satellites our of privacy and civil liberty concerns.  Got it.</p><p>Now that we are straight on this particular issue, let the Bush bashing begin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title would be less exciting if it read " Bush and Obama has never used satellites to spy on Americans " .Bush did n't use spy satellites our of privacy and civil liberty concerns .
Got it.Now that we are straight on this particular issue , let the Bush bashing begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title would be less exciting if it read "Bush and Obama has never used satellites to spy on Americans".Bush didn't use spy satellites our of privacy and civil liberty concerns.
Got it.Now that we are straight on this particular issue, let the Bush bashing begin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438827</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>davidwk</author>
	<datestamp>1245771840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At last we have a little good news to compare with the various stories that come from England. They are definitely sliding down the slippery slope.

Too bad - I kinda like Britain. Seems like it will take a miracle for them to restore their liberties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At last we have a little good news to compare with the various stories that come from England .
They are definitely sliding down the slippery slope .
Too bad - I kinda like Britain .
Seems like it will take a miracle for them to restore their liberties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At last we have a little good news to compare with the various stories that come from England.
They are definitely sliding down the slippery slope.
Too bad - I kinda like Britain.
Seems like it will take a miracle for them to restore their liberties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977</id>
	<title>Great news, IMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A problem with camera surveillance, is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view, so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious.  Statistically, its the same problem as with false positives in drug tests.  Compounding this problem is that when law enforcement is impersonal and from a distance, the accused often is not given a fair, face-to-face chance to defend themselves before having their lives temporarily wrecked.  By the time it goes to trial, it has already cost large legal fees and possibly employment.</p><p>In my own arrest a few years ago, for innocent behavior that looked suspicious from afar, I was never once interviewed by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor and given a chance to tell my story, right up to the morning of the trial.</p><p>There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago. Its nice that the Obama administration seems to be doing the right thing with this anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A problem with camera surveillance , is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view , so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious .
Statistically , its the same problem as with false positives in drug tests .
Compounding this problem is that when law enforcement is impersonal and from a distance , the accused often is not given a fair , face-to-face chance to defend themselves before having their lives temporarily wrecked .
By the time it goes to trial , it has already cost large legal fees and possibly employment.In my own arrest a few years ago , for innocent behavior that looked suspicious from afar , I was never once interviewed by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor and given a chance to tell my story , right up to the morning of the trial.There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago .
Its nice that the Obama administration seems to be doing the right thing with this anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A problem with camera surveillance, is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view, so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious.
Statistically, its the same problem as with false positives in drug tests.
Compounding this problem is that when law enforcement is impersonal and from a distance, the accused often is not given a fair, face-to-face chance to defend themselves before having their lives temporarily wrecked.
By the time it goes to trial, it has already cost large legal fees and possibly employment.In my own arrest a few years ago, for innocent behavior that looked suspicious from afar, I was never once interviewed by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor and given a chance to tell my story, right up to the morning of the trial.There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago.
Its nice that the Obama administration seems to be doing the right thing with this anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28445735</id>
	<title>Re:Like targetting agreements.</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1245753180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ</i></p><p>Nice word game, and example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.</p><p>All nice job at partisan baiting.  Attribute all positives to the side you identify with, and all negatives to your mythical "liberal" enemies.</p><p>I'm getting really sick of these silly dogmatic partisan statements.  100\% of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and whatever stupid ideology people identify with are wrong.  Some small amount of their greater ideology <i>might</i> not be wrong, but the larger corpus of ideals is <i>always</i> wrong.  Anyone who identifies themselves within a pure ideology, probably completely divorced from reality, or at least very uninformed.  Ideology blinds us to what politics is about, and should be about, PEOPLE, and more so, people in the real world, not some ideologically pure fantasy land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need an example of where real conservatives and today 's Republicans differNice word game , and example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.All nice job at partisan baiting .
Attribute all positives to the side you identify with , and all negatives to your mythical " liberal " enemies.I 'm getting really sick of these silly dogmatic partisan statements .
100 \ % of conservatives , liberals , libertarians , socialists , and whatever stupid ideology people identify with are wrong .
Some small amount of their greater ideology might not be wrong , but the larger corpus of ideals is always wrong .
Anyone who identifies themselves within a pure ideology , probably completely divorced from reality , or at least very uninformed .
Ideology blinds us to what politics is about , and should be about , PEOPLE , and more so , people in the real world , not some ideologically pure fantasy land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differNice word game, and example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.All nice job at partisan baiting.
Attribute all positives to the side you identify with, and all negatives to your mythical "liberal" enemies.I'm getting really sick of these silly dogmatic partisan statements.
100\% of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and whatever stupid ideology people identify with are wrong.
Some small amount of their greater ideology might not be wrong, but the larger corpus of ideals is always wrong.
Anyone who identifies themselves within a pure ideology, probably completely divorced from reality, or at least very uninformed.
Ideology blinds us to what politics is about, and should be about, PEOPLE, and more so, people in the real world, not some ideologically pure fantasy land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440573</id>
	<title>Re:Great news, IMO</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1245778500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I and my car were searched [slashdot.org] for parking in front of the wrong house. Two local cops, two FBI agents, and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask (in July in Illinois) came out with guns drawn.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm amazed at the crazy things that seem to happen to you, mcgrew.  That said, in this particular case, as inconvenient and frustrating as it was for you, I'm not exactly surprised.  The police/fbi/dea were watching a crack house, which you happened to park in front of. Your friends went inside, then came out a little later.  From their perspective, I hope you can see how that looks a little suspicious -- it's exactly the behavior (externally speaking) they were watching for.</p><p>You just seem to have some really bad luck.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) (The garage thing was very distressing, though, that's for sure.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I and my car were searched [ slashdot.org ] for parking in front of the wrong house .
Two local cops , two FBI agents , and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask ( in July in Illinois ) came out with guns drawn.I 'm amazed at the crazy things that seem to happen to you , mcgrew .
That said , in this particular case , as inconvenient and frustrating as it was for you , I 'm not exactly surprised .
The police/fbi/dea were watching a crack house , which you happened to park in front of .
Your friends went inside , then came out a little later .
From their perspective , I hope you can see how that looks a little suspicious -- it 's exactly the behavior ( externally speaking ) they were watching for.You just seem to have some really bad luck .
: - ) ( The garage thing was very distressing , though , that 's for sure .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I and my car were searched [slashdot.org] for parking in front of the wrong house.
Two local cops, two FBI agents, and a DEA agent wearing a ski mask (in July in Illinois) came out with guns drawn.I'm amazed at the crazy things that seem to happen to you, mcgrew.
That said, in this particular case, as inconvenient and frustrating as it was for you, I'm not exactly surprised.
The police/fbi/dea were watching a crack house, which you happened to park in front of.
Your friends went inside, then came out a little later.
From their perspective, I hope you can see how that looks a little suspicious -- it's exactly the behavior (externally speaking) they were watching for.You just seem to have some really bad luck.
:-) (The garage thing was very distressing, though, that's for sure.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438929</id>
	<title>Did they violate his anonymity?</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:<br><i>"Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and <b>she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity</b> because he was not authorized to talk about it."</i>*</p><p>Later on:<br><i>"<b>Bratton</b>, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, <b>wrote on June 21 that the program</b>, as envisioned by the Bush administration, <b>is not an urgent need for local law enforcement</b>."</i>*</p><p>*(Emphasis mine)</p><p>Anonymity. Yes, we've heard of it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials , and she was told it was not an urgent issue , said the official , who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it .
" * Later on : " Bratton , in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association , wrote on June 21 that the program , as envisioned by the Bush administration , is not an urgent need for local law enforcement .
" * * ( Emphasis mine ) Anonymity .
Yes , we 've heard of it .
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:"Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it.
"*Later on:"Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement.
"**(Emphasis mine)Anonymity.
Yes, we've heard of it.
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28445735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28443187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28448569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_145206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28444839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28441617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28441617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28444839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28440383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28443187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_145206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28438633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28445735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28448569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28442861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_145206.28439159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
