<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_09_1740253</id>
	<title>Murdoch Paper Reporters Eavesdropped On Celebrities' Voicemail</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247162280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://e-piphanies.typepad.com/epiphanies/" rel="nofollow">Michael\_Curator</a> writes <i>"Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10002581/murdoch-reporters-hacked-celebrity-phones/">allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities</a> and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up. How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on? Voicemail."</i> The New York Times  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html">says a preliminary investigation's been ordered</a>, but the BBC's coverage indicates that a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/8143120.stm">large-scale inquiry is unlikely</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael \ _Curator writes " Executives at Rupert Murdoch 's News Corp.-owned papers ( including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson ) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up .
How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on ?
Voicemail. " The New York Times says a preliminary investigation 's been ordered , but the BBC 's coverage indicates that a large-scale inquiry is unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael\_Curator writes "Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up.
How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on?
Voicemail." The New York Times  says a preliminary investigation's been ordered, but the BBC's coverage indicates that a large-scale inquiry is unlikely.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639479</id>
	<title>Linux killed my mom and dad and kicked my dog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the desktop yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with , especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643579</id>
	<title>Time to spring Murdoch...</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1247139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't be the only one who read this headline and thought, "What, Howling Mad Murdoch runs a newspaper?  I thought he was too busy being crazy and flying the A-Team around?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't be the only one who read this headline and thought , " What , Howling Mad Murdoch runs a newspaper ?
I thought he was too busy being crazy and flying the A-Team around ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't be the only one who read this headline and thought, "What, Howling Mad Murdoch runs a newspaper?
I thought he was too busy being crazy and flying the A-Team around?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639509</id>
	<title>Police: No new enquiry</title>
	<author>gigne</author>
	<datestamp>1247166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police say no new evidence means no enquiry.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>One to keep a critical eye on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police say no new evidence means no enquiry.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] One to keep a critical eye on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police say no new evidence means no enquiry.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm [bbc.co.uk]One to keep a critical eye on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28645969</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247160600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>No, that's something like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9</a> [amazon.com]   which is an order of magnitude cheaper<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's something like http : //www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9 [ amazon.com ] which is an order of magnitude cheaper : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's something like http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9 [amazon.com]   which is an order of magnitude cheaper :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</id>
	<title>FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes (eg. 0000 or 1234) to listen to the conversations.</p><p>There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people 's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes ( eg .
0000 or 1234 ) to listen to the conversations.There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers ( if that is at all possible )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes (eg.
0000 or 1234) to listen to the conversations.There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646793</id>
	<title>Re:They will get away with this.</title>
	<author>Plunky</author>
	<datestamp>1247258760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone</p></div></blockquote><p>If you have a reference for that I would be interested to see it. I can only find that she died from a Bronchial Asthma attack and in fact her parents were trying to get in touch with her for some days before the body was found..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the victims mentioned , Charlotte Coleman 's , died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phoneIf you have a reference for that I would be interested to see it .
I can only find that she died from a Bronchial Asthma attack and in fact her parents were trying to get in touch with her for some days before the body was found. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phoneIf you have a reference for that I would be interested to see it.
I can only find that she died from a Bronchial Asthma attack and in fact her parents were trying to get in touch with her for some days before the body was found..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28644049</id>
	<title>hack? pfft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247141880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to "hack" the voice mail of some high level administators at one of the educational institutions I attended... because this person never changed the default voicemail pass (which was the same as the last 4 digits of their voice mail extension)</p><p>Good example of social engineering? Yes.</p><p>A hack? Not in my opinion. I like to think of a "hack" as being something more than clever exploitation of basic psychology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to " hack " the voice mail of some high level administators at one of the educational institutions I attended... because this person never changed the default voicemail pass ( which was the same as the last 4 digits of their voice mail extension ) Good example of social engineering ?
Yes.A hack ?
Not in my opinion .
I like to think of a " hack " as being something more than clever exploitation of basic psychology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to "hack" the voice mail of some high level administators at one of the educational institutions I attended... because this person never changed the default voicemail pass (which was the same as the last 4 digits of their voice mail extension)Good example of social engineering?
Yes.A hack?
Not in my opinion.
I like to think of a "hack" as being something more than clever exploitation of basic psychology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642009</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247132940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares?  It's COPS.<br> <br>

And why is it on G4????????</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
It 's COPS .
And why is it on G4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
It's COPS.
And why is it on G4???????
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28648315</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247233920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LMAO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LMAO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMAO!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497</id>
	<title>Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The media will do anything and everything to get a "story" from "celebrities." It is amazing though how much money they spend on such frivolous things, I guess it rakes in the revenue though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media will do anything and everything to get a " story " from " celebrities .
" It is amazing though how much money they spend on such frivolous things , I guess it rakes in the revenue though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media will do anything and everything to get a "story" from "celebrities.
" It is amazing though how much money they spend on such frivolous things, I guess it rakes in the revenue though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643693</id>
	<title>But the REAL question we need answered is.......</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1247139900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you <b> think they will get away with this?!?!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they will get away with this ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you  think they will get away with this?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</id>
	<title>BT?</title>
	<author>c\_jonescc</author>
	<datestamp>1247166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I clicked on TFA to find out what BT is, but that sentence was just lifted from the link which also doesn't clarify.<br><br>That's some nice summerizin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked on TFA to find out what BT is , but that sentence was just lifted from the link which also does n't clarify.That 's some nice summerizin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked on TFA to find out what BT is, but that sentence was just lifted from the link which also doesn't clarify.That's some nice summerizin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787</id>
	<title>According to the media...</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1247167080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the media, you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system.  You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.<br> <br>

The media has no clue about hackers.  The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about "cool new software" to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009.  Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the media , you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system .
You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along .
The media has no clue about hackers .
The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about " cool new software " to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009 .
Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the media, you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system.
You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.
The media has no clue about hackers.
The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about "cool new software" to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009.
Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640613</id>
	<title>It's not hacking and PINs won't help.</title>
	<author>quarkoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247170140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UK mobile network voicemail systems are very very insecure.</p><p>Fake your caller ID (very easily done if you have half a clue) and dial into the message centre for whichever network the mobile number's on.</p><p>That's it. Simple. We've been doing this since 2004 to enable our customers to retrieve voicemail from their desktops.</p><p>It doesn't matter whether there's a PIN on the voicemail or not - none of the networks prompt for PINs if the caller ID is one of theirs.</p><p>And, to answer the question, "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on?"</p><p>1 - It wasn't the reporters who did it, it wasy the PIs they hired<br>2 - What have BT got to do with it?</p><p>Nick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK mobile network voicemail systems are very very insecure.Fake your caller ID ( very easily done if you have half a clue ) and dial into the message centre for whichever network the mobile number 's on.That 's it .
Simple. We 've been doing this since 2004 to enable our customers to retrieve voicemail from their desktops.It does n't matter whether there 's a PIN on the voicemail or not - none of the networks prompt for PINs if the caller ID is one of theirs.And , to answer the question , " How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on ?
" 1 - It was n't the reporters who did it , it wasy the PIs they hired2 - What have BT got to do with it ? Nick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK mobile network voicemail systems are very very insecure.Fake your caller ID (very easily done if you have half a clue) and dial into the message centre for whichever network the mobile number's on.That's it.
Simple. We've been doing this since 2004 to enable our customers to retrieve voicemail from their desktops.It doesn't matter whether there's a PIN on the voicemail or not - none of the networks prompt for PINs if the caller ID is one of theirs.And, to answer the question, "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on?
"1 - It wasn't the reporters who did it, it wasy the PIs they hired2 - What have BT got to do with it?Nick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639687</id>
	<title>Re:BT?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my day, BT = British Telecom.</p><p>I would assume that that's what they mean by BT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day , BT = British Telecom.I would assume that that 's what they mean by BT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day, BT = British Telecom.I would assume that that's what they mean by BT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639641</id>
	<title>caller id spoofing != hacking</title>
	<author>NynexNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1247166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking".   This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail ( most are configured without password ) to listen to voicemail messages , " hacking " .
This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking".
This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641331</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1247173020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it did. Two people have even been sent to prison for it after they tried it on a member of the royal family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it did .
Two people have even been sent to prison for it after they tried it on a member of the royal family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it did.
Two people have even been sent to prison for it after they tried it on a member of the royal family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646091</id>
	<title>Annoying only for the lazy</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247162160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, how hard is it? The cellular providers here actually *DO* this. If I dial somebody who hasn't setup their voicemail, I get a "you have reached an unconfigured voicemail box for 555-555-5555, please let the owner know to configure their mailbox"</p><p>For my own inbox,  just a couple minutes for the default setup (password, and the provider's default greeting) and all is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how hard is it ?
The cellular providers here actually * DO * this .
If I dial somebody who has n't setup their voicemail , I get a " you have reached an unconfigured voicemail box for 555-555-5555 , please let the owner know to configure their mailbox " For my own inbox , just a couple minutes for the default setup ( password , and the provider 's default greeting ) and all is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how hard is it?
The cellular providers here actually *DO* this.
If I dial somebody who hasn't setup their voicemail, I get a "you have reached an unconfigured voicemail box for 555-555-5555, please let the owner know to configure their mailbox"For my own inbox,  just a couple minutes for the default setup (password, and the provider's default greeting) and all is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640277</id>
	<title>Basic security</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1247168940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not changing your voicemail PIN is pretty much equivalent to having one of those bathroom locks that can be opened with a penny on your front door.  If somebody breaks in it's still illegal, but you share some blame because you're stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not changing your voicemail PIN is pretty much equivalent to having one of those bathroom locks that can be opened with a penny on your front door .
If somebody breaks in it 's still illegal , but you share some blame because you 're stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not changing your voicemail PIN is pretty much equivalent to having one of those bathroom locks that can be opened with a penny on your front door.
If somebody breaks in it's still illegal, but you share some blame because you're stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639915</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247167560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Celebrity 1: "Hey dude"<br>Celebrity 2: "Hey dude"<br>Celebrity 1: "What's up?"<br>Celebrity 2: "Nothing"<br>Celebrity 1: "Wanna party?"<br>Celebrity 2: "That would be totally awesome"<br>Celebrity 1: "OK, see ya soon. Save Tibet and all that shit."<br>Celebrity 2: "And the whales too man."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Celebrity 1 : " Hey dude " Celebrity 2 : " Hey dude " Celebrity 1 : " What 's up ?
" Celebrity 2 : " Nothing " Celebrity 1 : " Wan na party ?
" Celebrity 2 : " That would be totally awesome " Celebrity 1 : " OK , see ya soon .
Save Tibet and all that shit .
" Celebrity 2 : " And the whales too man .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Celebrity 1: "Hey dude"Celebrity 2: "Hey dude"Celebrity 1: "What's up?
"Celebrity 2: "Nothing"Celebrity 1: "Wanna party?
"Celebrity 2: "That would be totally awesome"Celebrity 1: "OK, see ya soon.
Save Tibet and all that shit.
"Celebrity 2: "And the whales too man.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640663</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247170320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I don't know how it is in third world countries. But here in Germany, if you leave the "allegedly" away, even in the headline of a tabloid newspaper, you will get sued and your business may get closed down if you do not immediately rectify the statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I do n't know how it is in third world countries .
But here in Germany , if you leave the " allegedly " away , even in the headline of a tabloid newspaper , you will get sued and your business may get closed down if you do not immediately rectify the statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don't know how it is in third world countries.
But here in Germany, if you leave the "allegedly" away, even in the headline of a tabloid newspaper, you will get sued and your business may get closed down if you do not immediately rectify the statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28647289</id>
	<title>Private investigators</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1247221440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New Labour - who introduced a series of changes allowing the police to pursue petty crimes with maximum prejudice - have been oddly reluctant to act against private investigators who commit actual real crimes. Possibly because they tend to be ex-police officers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Labour - who introduced a series of changes allowing the police to pursue petty crimes with maximum prejudice - have been oddly reluctant to act against private investigators who commit actual real crimes .
Possibly because they tend to be ex-police officers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Labour - who introduced a series of changes allowing the police to pursue petty crimes with maximum prejudice - have been oddly reluctant to act against private investigators who commit actual real crimes.
Possibly because they tend to be ex-police officers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603</id>
	<title>Everyones Enemy</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1247166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someday people will catch on that the popular press is nothing more than charlatans out to make a buck at everyones expense.<br>You can't read anything and believe it. The necessity of news is replaced with eye catching lies to sell ads. The necessity of privacy is pushed aside by judges paid off by their large coffers. As long as they can push it by the editor they will write anything whether it is more destructive than its value or not.<br>Next time you see a news clown, throw a rock! Mug them! Take their cameras and cripple them permanently. Make it a job no one wants. This includes television and radio. No news is better than the problems associated with the bullshit the general public has to put up with. You can flush this industry down the toilet along with the music industry , movie industry, television and radio. These are some of the true enemies of mankind. Just let it die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday people will catch on that the popular press is nothing more than charlatans out to make a buck at everyones expense.You ca n't read anything and believe it .
The necessity of news is replaced with eye catching lies to sell ads .
The necessity of privacy is pushed aside by judges paid off by their large coffers .
As long as they can push it by the editor they will write anything whether it is more destructive than its value or not.Next time you see a news clown , throw a rock !
Mug them !
Take their cameras and cripple them permanently .
Make it a job no one wants .
This includes television and radio .
No news is better than the problems associated with the bullshit the general public has to put up with .
You can flush this industry down the toilet along with the music industry , movie industry , television and radio .
These are some of the true enemies of mankind .
Just let it die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday people will catch on that the popular press is nothing more than charlatans out to make a buck at everyones expense.You can't read anything and believe it.
The necessity of news is replaced with eye catching lies to sell ads.
The necessity of privacy is pushed aside by judges paid off by their large coffers.
As long as they can push it by the editor they will write anything whether it is more destructive than its value or not.Next time you see a news clown, throw a rock!
Mug them!
Take their cameras and cripple them permanently.
Make it a job no one wants.
This includes television and radio.
No news is better than the problems associated with the bullshit the general public has to put up with.
You can flush this industry down the toilet along with the music industry , movie industry, television and radio.
These are some of the true enemies of mankind.
Just let it die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643959</id>
	<title>You must be new here</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1247141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You actually were making a rather Insightful post until the whole crippling people thing.</p><p>I see the mods agreed, and though you have a 5 digit UID, you must be new here, because any exaggeration, especially making any kind of allusion to violence of any kind will immediately get you modded flaimbait.</p><p>Shoulda found a way to make it into a car analogy man, then your point would have gotten across a lot better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You actually were making a rather Insightful post until the whole crippling people thing.I see the mods agreed , and though you have a 5 digit UID , you must be new here , because any exaggeration , especially making any kind of allusion to violence of any kind will immediately get you modded flaimbait.Shoulda found a way to make it into a car analogy man , then your point would have gotten across a lot better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You actually were making a rather Insightful post until the whole crippling people thing.I see the mods agreed, and though you have a 5 digit UID, you must be new here, because any exaggeration, especially making any kind of allusion to violence of any kind will immediately get you modded flaimbait.Shoulda found a way to make it into a car analogy man, then your point would have gotten across a lot better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641427</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the admins do their job and use unique defaults instead of 1234?  It really is incredible how lazy people are with passwords. Id rather assign you 84833 as your VM password than have you leave it 12345.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the admins do their job and use unique defaults instead of 1234 ?
It really is incredible how lazy people are with passwords .
Id rather assign you 84833 as your VM password than have you leave it 12345 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the admins do their job and use unique defaults instead of 1234?
It really is incredible how lazy people are with passwords.
Id rather assign you 84833 as your VM password than have you leave it 12345.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643019</id>
	<title>Don't get mad, make a movie depicting the person</title>
	<author>Dr.Who</author>
	<datestamp>1247137020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For example, the character Elliot Carver in <i> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120347/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Tomorrow Never Dies</a> [imdb.com] </i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , the character Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, the character Elliot Carver in  Tomorrow Never Dies [imdb.com] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640973</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1247171640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to ask: Is your disclaimer that "Not all disclaimers are superfluous" superfluous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to ask : Is your disclaimer that " Not all disclaimers are superfluous " superfluous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to ask: Is your disclaimer that "Not all disclaimers are superfluous" superfluous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639739</id>
	<title>Re:BT?</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1247166900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>British Telephone or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British Telephone or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British Telephone or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640031</id>
	<title>Re:caller id spoofing != hacking</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1247167980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking". This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI. The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol &amp; is inserted by the phone company at the switch &amp; can't normally be changed (it can be blocked/caused to fault). Any company that's using the caller ID &amp; not the ANI to access voicemail without a password should be sued into oblivion for criminal negligence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail ( most are configured without password ) to listen to voicemail messages , " hacking " .
This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI .
The caller ID can be changed , the ANI is part of the switching protocol &amp; is inserted by the phone company at the switch &amp; ca n't normally be changed ( it can be blocked/caused to fault ) .
Any company that 's using the caller ID &amp; not the ANI to access voicemail without a password should be sued into oblivion for criminal negligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking".
This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI.
The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol &amp; is inserted by the phone company at the switch &amp; can't normally be changed (it can be blocked/caused to fault).
Any company that's using the caller ID &amp; not the ANI to access voicemail without a password should be sued into oblivion for criminal negligence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28658647</id>
	<title>Re:Be interesting</title>
	<author>thomasdn</author>
	<datestamp>1247308140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.</p></div><p>I don't think that calling up people's voicemail and trying default PINs to obtain access to private information is equivalent to connecting to a random unprotected wireless access point.

I think it would be a more fair analogy if you said connecting to a specific wireless access point and then packet sniffing the data traffic on it.

Just using an unprotected WAP is not and should not be a crime. Leaving your WAP unprotected is just courtesy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To see who has a problem with this , but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.I do n't think that calling up people 's voicemail and trying default PINs to obtain access to private information is equivalent to connecting to a random unprotected wireless access point .
I think it would be a more fair analogy if you said connecting to a specific wireless access point and then packet sniffing the data traffic on it .
Just using an unprotected WAP is not and should not be a crime .
Leaving your WAP unprotected is just courtesy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.I don't think that calling up people's voicemail and trying default PINs to obtain access to private information is equivalent to connecting to a random unprotected wireless access point.
I think it would be a more fair analogy if you said connecting to a specific wireless access point and then packet sniffing the data traffic on it.
Just using an unprotected WAP is not and should not be a crime.
Leaving your WAP unprotected is just courtesy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639719</id>
	<title>You know what this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure dozens of celebrities are now changing their pin TO the default, so media outlets can "accidentally" find out juicy details about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure dozens of celebrities are now changing their pin TO the default , so media outlets can " accidentally " find out juicy details about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure dozens of celebrities are now changing their pin TO the default, so media outlets can "accidentally" find out juicy details about them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639855</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247167320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the carriers could not allow voicemail from other phone numbers until the default password has been changed, which would solve the issue without causing all that much inconvenience to the customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the carriers could not allow voicemail from other phone numbers until the default password has been changed , which would solve the issue without causing all that much inconvenience to the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the carriers could not allow voicemail from other phone numbers until the default password has been changed, which would solve the issue without causing all that much inconvenience to the customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>DigitAl56K</author>
	<datestamp>1247167620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The carriers voicemail system should do four things:</p><p>1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so</p><p>2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)</p><p>3. Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers. When you enter your PIN successfully it should say, "Thanks! You last logged in x  ago", and if appropriate "Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in".</p><p>4. If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.</p><p>Items #1&amp;2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.</p><p>I don't buy into the "there is not much you can do about it line" since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security. I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carriers voicemail system should do four things : 1.When you first get a phone , auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set , require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to ( without the aid of customer service ) 3 .
Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers .
When you enter your PIN successfully it should say , " Thanks !
You last logged in x ago " , and if appropriate " Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in " .4 .
If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.Items # 1&amp;2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number .
# 3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail .
# 4 just makes sense , and in the case that someone is getting DOS 'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that do n't auto-lock.I do n't buy into the " there is not much you can do about it line " since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security .
I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carriers voicemail system should do four things:1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)3.
Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers.
When you enter your PIN successfully it should say, "Thanks!
You last logged in x  ago", and if appropriate "Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in".4.
If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.Items #1&amp;2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number.
#3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail.
#4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.I don't buy into the "there is not much you can do about it line" since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security.
I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642145</id>
	<title>Huh?  Interesting why?</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to understand your point?</p><p>If I find a random, unprotected WAP and decide to make use of it, I'm simply getting on the Internet without paying to do so.  I have no knowledge of WHY the person providing the connection is doing so - but could reasonably assume they INTENDED to make it freely accessible.  (After all, many people do this for the sake of providing their community with a public service.  You can find web sites dedicated to it, with tips on the best antennas to place outdoors so people get the best connections, etc. etc.)</p><p>If I dial up some celebrity's personal cellphone, go into their voicemail, and enter a default PIN, I'm attempting to listen to their messages<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a totally different thing.  I'm not viewing someone's personal email, simply because I'm using an unprotected WAP they provided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to understand your point ? If I find a random , unprotected WAP and decide to make use of it , I 'm simply getting on the Internet without paying to do so .
I have no knowledge of WHY the person providing the connection is doing so - but could reasonably assume they INTENDED to make it freely accessible .
( After all , many people do this for the sake of providing their community with a public service .
You can find web sites dedicated to it , with tips on the best antennas to place outdoors so people get the best connections , etc .
etc. ) If I dial up some celebrity 's personal cellphone , go into their voicemail , and enter a default PIN , I 'm attempting to listen to their messages ... a totally different thing .
I 'm not viewing someone 's personal email , simply because I 'm using an unprotected WAP they provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to understand your point?If I find a random, unprotected WAP and decide to make use of it, I'm simply getting on the Internet without paying to do so.
I have no knowledge of WHY the person providing the connection is doing so - but could reasonably assume they INTENDED to make it freely accessible.
(After all, many people do this for the sake of providing their community with a public service.
You can find web sites dedicated to it, with tips on the best antennas to place outdoors so people get the best connections, etc.
etc.)If I dial up some celebrity's personal cellphone, go into their voicemail, and enter a default PIN, I'm attempting to listen to their messages ... a totally different thing.
I'm not viewing someone's personal email, simply because I'm using an unprotected WAP they provided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1247171460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be annoying as hell.</p><p>How about they leave the system as is, and let users too careless to change their passwords suffer the consequences instead of making <em>everyone</em> pay for their shortcomings?</p><p>People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be annoying as hell.How about they leave the system as is , and let users too careless to change their passwords suffer the consequences instead of making everyone pay for their shortcomings ? People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be annoying as hell.How about they leave the system as is, and let users too careless to change their passwords suffer the consequences instead of making everyone pay for their shortcomings?People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640679</id>
	<title>Re:BT?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1247170380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"BT" stands for "Big Titties", something the British are particularly fond of. In fact, they are so popular, they even have a website for them <a href="http://www.bt.com/" title="bt.com">here</a> [bt.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>" BT " stands for " Big Titties " , something the British are particularly fond of .
In fact , they are so popular , they even have a website for them here [ bt.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BT" stands for "Big Titties", something the British are particularly fond of.
In fact, they are so popular, they even have a website for them here [bt.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639965</id>
	<title>Can be done with Asterisk</title>
	<author>kaptink</author>
	<datestamp>1247167740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a way of playing back voicemail messages that bypasses all security checks that I found out accidentally using a friends asterisk box. You need a proper telco trunk to it which I don't think is too hard to get (he works for a local phone company). If I remember correctly, it works by setting your trunk ID to the mobile phone or land line number you want to hack on the asterisk box. The phone system thinks it's the mobile itself calling when you dial the same mobile number through the trunk and automatically starts the message bank. was quite fun tho totally illegal since you are forging numbers through the public phone system. great party trick and good way to have some fun with your mates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a way of playing back voicemail messages that bypasses all security checks that I found out accidentally using a friends asterisk box .
You need a proper telco trunk to it which I do n't think is too hard to get ( he works for a local phone company ) .
If I remember correctly , it works by setting your trunk ID to the mobile phone or land line number you want to hack on the asterisk box .
The phone system thinks it 's the mobile itself calling when you dial the same mobile number through the trunk and automatically starts the message bank .
was quite fun tho totally illegal since you are forging numbers through the public phone system .
great party trick and good way to have some fun with your mates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a way of playing back voicemail messages that bypasses all security checks that I found out accidentally using a friends asterisk box.
You need a proper telco trunk to it which I don't think is too hard to get (he works for a local phone company).
If I remember correctly, it works by setting your trunk ID to the mobile phone or land line number you want to hack on the asterisk box.
The phone system thinks it's the mobile itself calling when you dial the same mobile number through the trunk and automatically starts the message bank.
was quite fun tho totally illegal since you are forging numbers through the public phone system.
great party trick and good way to have some fun with your mates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</id>
	<title>They will get away with this.</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247171640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, they will get away with it too.</p><p>A police inquiry has already been ruled out. The Crown Prosecution Service "review", will amount to just that. Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted, and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory's PR man Andy Coulson (Former News of the World Editor) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor's PR man Damian McBride. Those bugged will be paid off(some already have been) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch's News International's $21 billion chest. The press complaints commission is the industry's "self regulation" body, paid for by the newspapers themselves.</p><p>They will get away with this.</p><p>This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out; hacking, wire fraud, misrepresentation, etc, has been going on for at least a <b>decade</b>. One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone. Victims include TV celebrities, Royal family members, CEOs and members of parliament. These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex. They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day. There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.</p><p>They will get away with this.</p><p>The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom, but it is by no means confined to that place.  It's pervasive throughout Murdoch's publications, and probably beyond. News International papers, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the list goes on. Steve Whittamore's(the private investigator) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists. <i>And this is all from only <b>one</b> such man</i>. Who knows how many other investigators exist, an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.</p><p>They will get away with this. The culture runs too deep, and is too established. Too many newspapers are in on it. Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty. Nothing is sacred, no one is safe, and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them. What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped?</p><p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, <i>Your Fourth Estate</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , they will get away with it too.A police inquiry has already been ruled out .
The Crown Prosecution Service " review " , will amount to just that .
Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted , and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory 's PR man Andy Coulson ( Former News of the World Editor ) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor 's PR man Damian McBride .
Those bugged will be paid off ( some already have been ) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch 's News International 's $ 21 billion chest .
The press complaints commission is the industry 's " self regulation " body , paid for by the newspapers themselves.They will get away with this.This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out ; hacking , wire fraud , misrepresentation , etc , has been going on for at least a decade .
One of the victims mentioned , Charlotte Coleman 's , died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone .
Victims include TV celebrities , Royal family members , CEOs and members of parliament .
These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley ( 67 ) was having sex .
They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day .
There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.They will get away with this.The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom , but it is by no means confined to that place .
It 's pervasive throughout Murdoch 's publications , and probably beyond .
News International papers , the Mirror , the Daily Mail , the Observer , the list goes on .
Steve Whittamore 's ( the private investigator ) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists .
And this is all from only one such man .
Who knows how many other investigators exist , an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.They will get away with this .
The culture runs too deep , and is too established .
Too many newspapers are in on it .
Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty .
Nothing is sacred , no one is safe , and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them .
What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped ? Ladies and Gentlemen , I give you , Your Fourth Estate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, they will get away with it too.A police inquiry has already been ruled out.
The Crown Prosecution Service "review", will amount to just that.
Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted, and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory's PR man Andy Coulson (Former News of the World Editor) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor's PR man Damian McBride.
Those bugged will be paid off(some already have been) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch's News International's $21 billion chest.
The press complaints commission is the industry's "self regulation" body, paid for by the newspapers themselves.They will get away with this.This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out; hacking, wire fraud, misrepresentation, etc, has been going on for at least a decade.
One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone.
Victims include TV celebrities, Royal family members, CEOs and members of parliament.
These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex.
They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day.
There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.They will get away with this.The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom, but it is by no means confined to that place.
It's pervasive throughout Murdoch's publications, and probably beyond.
News International papers, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the list goes on.
Steve Whittamore's(the private investigator) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists.
And this is all from only one such man.
Who knows how many other investigators exist, an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.They will get away with this.
The culture runs too deep, and is too established.
Too many newspapers are in on it.
Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty.
Nothing is sacred, no one is safe, and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them.
What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped?Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, Your Fourth Estate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641071</id>
	<title>Re:According to the media...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1247171940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The media has no clue about hackers.</p> </div><p>Add that to the list if there's room.  I know they're likewise clueless about basic biology, let alone stem cells, genetics, evolutionary theory, or microbiology.  A friend of mine who is an ordained priest once pointed out to me that they're usually off on religious issues as well.  General news services aren't really good at anything it seems besides celebrity gossip.  Of course, it's a reflection of society's ignorance, which is even more depressing.  Ask some guy off a street what a hacker is, I bet you'd be dissapointed.  Hell, you'd probably be dissapointed in MY answer as to what a hacker is.</p><p>For both our sakes, I won't answer, nor will I start quizing you about biology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media has no clue about hackers .
Add that to the list if there 's room .
I know they 're likewise clueless about basic biology , let alone stem cells , genetics , evolutionary theory , or microbiology .
A friend of mine who is an ordained priest once pointed out to me that they 're usually off on religious issues as well .
General news services are n't really good at anything it seems besides celebrity gossip .
Of course , it 's a reflection of society 's ignorance , which is even more depressing .
Ask some guy off a street what a hacker is , I bet you 'd be dissapointed .
Hell , you 'd probably be dissapointed in MY answer as to what a hacker is.For both our sakes , I wo n't answer , nor will I start quizing you about biology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media has no clue about hackers.
Add that to the list if there's room.
I know they're likewise clueless about basic biology, let alone stem cells, genetics, evolutionary theory, or microbiology.
A friend of mine who is an ordained priest once pointed out to me that they're usually off on religious issues as well.
General news services aren't really good at anything it seems besides celebrity gossip.
Of course, it's a reflection of society's ignorance, which is even more depressing.
Ask some guy off a street what a hacker is, I bet you'd be dissapointed.
Hell, you'd probably be dissapointed in MY answer as to what a hacker is.For both our sakes, I won't answer, nor will I start quizing you about biology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639527</id>
	<title>calling voicemail is "hacking"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about as much as my flatulence is "rocket propulsion"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about as much as my flatulence is " rocket propulsion "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about as much as my flatulence is "rocket propulsion"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643725</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1247140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.</p></div><p>People like you are why stupid users cause problems so politicians think we need laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly. Solve it with tech - there can always be an option to turn the extra login notifications off if you really don't care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.People like you are why stupid users cause problems so politicians think we need laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly .
Solve it with tech - there can always be an option to turn the extra login notifications off if you really do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.People like you are why stupid users cause problems so politicians think we need laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly.
Solve it with tech - there can always be an option to turn the extra login notifications off if you really don't care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640395</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1247169300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea... from the article... "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on"</p><p>My take: By preying on even more technologically challenged victims. Celebrities that are too stupid to change their default pin or have their "handlers" do it for them.</p><p>I sense a feeding frenzy here. You don't have to be smart, just smarter than your victims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea... from the article... " How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on " My take : By preying on even more technologically challenged victims .
Celebrities that are too stupid to change their default pin or have their " handlers " do it for them.I sense a feeding frenzy here .
You do n't have to be smart , just smarter than your victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea... from the article... "How did famously technologically-challenged reporters manage the feat without BT catching on"My take: By preying on even more technologically challenged victims.
Celebrities that are too stupid to change their default pin or have their "handlers" do it for them.I sense a feeding frenzy here.
You don't have to be smart, just smarter than your victims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640749</id>
	<title>Re:According to the media...</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1247170680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In regards to the (alleged) North Korean computer attacks on US and South Korean servers... I watched an NBC report where they first used the word "hacked", shortly followed by "cracked", and then after those loaded words finally explained that the attacks were denial of service.  I guess it's as stupid as equating virus/worm/trojan/spyware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In regards to the ( alleged ) North Korean computer attacks on US and South Korean servers... I watched an NBC report where they first used the word " hacked " , shortly followed by " cracked " , and then after those loaded words finally explained that the attacks were denial of service .
I guess it 's as stupid as equating virus/worm/trojan/spyware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In regards to the (alleged) North Korean computer attacks on US and South Korean servers... I watched an NBC report where they first used the word "hacked", shortly followed by "cracked", and then after those loaded words finally explained that the attacks were denial of service.
I guess it's as stupid as equating virus/worm/trojan/spyware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640627</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1247170200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, as you point out, locking accounts after X number of invalid PIN/password attempts leads to a very well known DoS attack. Best to just disable access for an hour or less after 3 bad PINs; requiring customer service intervention for something that happens all the time can get very expensive. I would also point out that most small company voice mail system don't have a customer service representative to redirect to (like the company I work for, for example. The best you can do is redirect to the receptionist, who doesn't have admin access to the Cisco phone system.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with points 1 , 2 , and 3 , as you point out , locking accounts after X number of invalid PIN/password attempts leads to a very well known DoS attack .
Best to just disable access for an hour or less after 3 bad PINs ; requiring customer service intervention for something that happens all the time can get very expensive .
I would also point out that most small company voice mail system do n't have a customer service representative to redirect to ( like the company I work for , for example .
The best you can do is redirect to the receptionist , who does n't have admin access to the Cisco phone system .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, as you point out, locking accounts after X number of invalid PIN/password attempts leads to a very well known DoS attack.
Best to just disable access for an hour or less after 3 bad PINs; requiring customer service intervention for something that happens all the time can get very expensive.
I would also point out that most small company voice mail system don't have a customer service representative to redirect to (like the company I work for, for example.
The best you can do is redirect to the receptionist, who doesn't have admin access to the Cisco phone system.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503</id>
	<title>Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One newspaper alleges that another did this.  Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One newspaper alleges that another did this .
Why does the summary state , without qualification , that it occurred ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One newspaper alleges that another did this.
Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28647921</id>
	<title>Skipe</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1247230920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Murdock. Rupert Murdock?  Wasn't Skype taken over by Rupert Murdoch? Skipe having backdoors that allow undetected eavesdropping?  I always wondered what he wanted with Skipe.  Now I see the whatever billions he paid for Skipe turning out to be just an old man with a toy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdock .
Rupert Murdock ?
Was n't Skype taken over by Rupert Murdoch ?
Skipe having backdoors that allow undetected eavesdropping ?
I always wondered what he wanted with Skipe .
Now I see the whatever billions he paid for Skipe turning out to be just an old man with a toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Murdock.
Rupert Murdock?
Wasn't Skype taken over by Rupert Murdoch?
Skipe having backdoors that allow undetected eavesdropping?
I always wondered what he wanted with Skipe.
Now I see the whatever billions he paid for Skipe turning out to be just an old man with a toy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646037</id>
	<title>Re:They will get away with this.</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1247161440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>... the Observer...</i> <br> <br>
The Observer isn't a Murdoch paper - it's owned by The Guardian, and one of the few independents left. Cherish it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the Observer.. . The Observer is n't a Murdoch paper - it 's owned by The Guardian , and one of the few independents left .
Cherish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the Observer...  
The Observer isn't a Murdoch paper - it's owned by The Guardian, and one of the few independents left.
Cherish it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640197</id>
	<title>Re:Everyones Enemy</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1247168580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi! This is Pol Pot. Have we met? Because you seem like some I could really dig (a grave for).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi !
This is Pol Pot .
Have we met ?
Because you seem like some I could really dig ( a grave for ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi!
This is Pol Pot.
Have we met?
Because you seem like some I could really dig (a grave for).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327</id>
	<title>Be interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247169120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To see who has a problem with this , but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To see who has a problem with this, but is A-OK with connecting to any random unprotected WAP they can find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639989</id>
	<title>Re:BT?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1247167860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know.. maybe British Telecom ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. So perhaps these are landlines as opposed to cell phones ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and the story gets lamer and lamer, I suppose there are some people who use the phone companies voicemail as opposed to a physical answering machine for their home phone.. well, la..de..da big spending celebs who throw away their money on fancy add on services. (course who knows maybe BT includes it, unlike the phone co's here)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know.. maybe British Telecom ?
.. So perhaps these are landlines as opposed to cell phones ?
.. and the story gets lamer and lamer , I suppose there are some people who use the phone companies voicemail as opposed to a physical answering machine for their home phone.. well , la..de..da big spending celebs who throw away their money on fancy add on services .
( course who knows maybe BT includes it , unlike the phone co 's here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know.. maybe British Telecom ?
.. So perhaps these are landlines as opposed to cell phones ?
.. and the story gets lamer and lamer, I suppose there are some people who use the phone companies voicemail as opposed to a physical answering machine for their home phone.. well, la..de..da big spending celebs who throw away their money on fancy add on services.
(course who knows maybe BT includes it, unlike the phone co's here)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640173</id>
	<title>Re:Everyones Enemy</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1247168520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a 5-digit account number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a 5-digit account number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a 5-digit account number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640263</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247168820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"? People always assume that those accused are guilty. </i></p><p>That is because most of the time, that is true. Generally speaking, in civilized countries, most of the time, police don't arrest someone unless they have good evidence they committed the crime. And the reason you have good evidence they committed the crime is because they ACTUALLY DID COMMIT THE CRIME.</p><p>You wouldn't want to live in a country if most of the people arrested by the police are actually innocent.</p><p>Of course, there have been many, many cases of police error, misconduct and sloppiness leading to innocent people being arrested &amp; convicted. But most of the time people are arrested because they are guilty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it make a difference if they had said " allegedly " ?
People always assume that those accused are guilty .
That is because most of the time , that is true .
Generally speaking , in civilized countries , most of the time , police do n't arrest someone unless they have good evidence they committed the crime .
And the reason you have good evidence they committed the crime is because they ACTUALLY DID COMMIT THE CRIME.You would n't want to live in a country if most of the people arrested by the police are actually innocent.Of course , there have been many , many cases of police error , misconduct and sloppiness leading to innocent people being arrested &amp; convicted .
But most of the time people are arrested because they are guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"?
People always assume that those accused are guilty.
That is because most of the time, that is true.
Generally speaking, in civilized countries, most of the time, police don't arrest someone unless they have good evidence they committed the crime.
And the reason you have good evidence they committed the crime is because they ACTUALLY DID COMMIT THE CRIME.You wouldn't want to live in a country if most of the people arrested by the police are actually innocent.Of course, there have been many, many cases of police error, misconduct and sloppiness leading to innocent people being arrested &amp; convicted.
But most of the time people are arrested because they are guilty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643979</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247141400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Similar thing with wifi routers. Rather than having one default password I think the password should initially be set to the device serial number. Similarly the voice mail password could initially be set to the first four digits of the phones IMEI number, or the customer account number or something similar.<br> <br>
All these things can be found out, but you might have to do some breaking and entering to get there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar thing with wifi routers .
Rather than having one default password I think the password should initially be set to the device serial number .
Similarly the voice mail password could initially be set to the first four digits of the phones IMEI number , or the customer account number or something similar .
All these things can be found out , but you might have to do some breaking and entering to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar thing with wifi routers.
Rather than having one default password I think the password should initially be set to the device serial number.
Similarly the voice mail password could initially be set to the first four digits of the phones IMEI number, or the customer account number or something similar.
All these things can be found out, but you might have to do some breaking and entering to get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639691</id>
	<title>Re:BT?</title>
	<author>WillyMF1</author>
	<datestamp>1247166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>British Telecom</htmltext>
<tokenext>British Telecom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British Telecom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28644223</id>
	<title>Re:Be interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be the equivalent of connecting to an unprotected or default passworded WAP and reading their email and web traffic. Using the internet without permission is not an invasion of piracy. It's a theft of service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the equivalent of connecting to an unprotected or default passworded WAP and reading their email and web traffic .
Using the internet without permission is not an invasion of piracy .
It 's a theft of service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the equivalent of connecting to an unprotected or default passworded WAP and reading their email and web traffic.
Using the internet without permission is not an invasion of piracy.
It's a theft of service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639781</id>
	<title>Re:Not much news here</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1247167080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say let's call them "PIN kiddies"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say let 's call them " PIN kiddies " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say let's call them "PIN kiddies" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639759</id>
	<title>Guardian Story</title>
	<author>bmsleight</author>
	<datestamp>1247166960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was originally a Guardian Story. It relates to mobile phones, not BT landline.<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational</a> [guardian.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was originally a Guardian Story .
It relates to mobile phones , not BT landline .
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was originally a Guardian Story.
It relates to mobile phones, not BT landline.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646257</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>qwertyatwork</author>
	<datestamp>1247164800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so
<br> <br>
I use to work for a cell phone company and can tell you the customers would revolt if they did that.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)
<br> <br>
That is a brilliant idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...1.When you first get a phone , auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so I use to work for a cell phone company and can tell you the customers would revolt if they did that .
...2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set , require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to ( without the aid of customer service ) That is a brilliant idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so
 
I use to work for a cell phone company and can tell you the customers would revolt if they did that.
...2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)
 
That is a brilliant idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639681</id>
	<title>Funny the other press.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fox News, WSJ, other Murdoch properties are sailing along in number 1 slots and relatively profitably.  NYT and other media outlets have been looking for a way to dent their rivals for years.  One wonders how much of this sort of reporting they do themselves, and how motivated by the public interest this is, or their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fox News , WSJ , other Murdoch properties are sailing along in number 1 slots and relatively profitably .
NYT and other media outlets have been looking for a way to dent their rivals for years .
One wonders how much of this sort of reporting they do themselves , and how motivated by the public interest this is , or their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fox News, WSJ, other Murdoch properties are sailing along in number 1 slots and relatively profitably.
NYT and other media outlets have been looking for a way to dent their rivals for years.
One wonders how much of this sort of reporting they do themselves, and how motivated by the public interest this is, or their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643759</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>nicolastheadept</author>
	<datestamp>1247140140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up."

-This much is definitely true, they have already paid several celebrities, whose phones they hacked, settlements. The question is whether or not the executives knew, and how widespread the practice was. The Guardian says it has evidence of 27 (I think) journalists involved in the hacking.
It would be amazing if they didn't know the techniques used by their employees to gain scoops. Particularly interesting is one former executive of the Times (another News Corp paper) saying as much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Executives at Rupert Murdoch 's News Corp.-owned papers ( including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson ) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up .
" -This much is definitely true , they have already paid several celebrities , whose phones they hacked , settlements .
The question is whether or not the executives knew , and how widespread the practice was .
The Guardian says it has evidence of 27 ( I think ) journalists involved in the hacking .
It would be amazing if they did n't know the techniques used by their employees to gain scoops .
Particularly interesting is one former executive of the Times ( another News Corp paper ) saying as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Executives at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned papers (including current Tory spokesman Andy Coulson) allowed reporters to hack into phone conversations of celebrities and then paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up.
"

-This much is definitely true, they have already paid several celebrities, whose phones they hacked, settlements.
The question is whether or not the executives knew, and how widespread the practice was.
The Guardian says it has evidence of 27 (I think) journalists involved in the hacking.
It would be amazing if they didn't know the techniques used by their employees to gain scoops.
Particularly interesting is one former executive of the Times (another News Corp paper) saying as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640323</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247169120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh...come on...#1 and #2 are absurd.<br>If you want to protect your voice mail, go ahead keep changing your PIN every hour...don't make everyone do that.<br>If I found out that others are listening to my voice mail, I'd be happy that at least one person is interested in my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh...come on... # 1 and # 2 are absurd.If you want to protect your voice mail , go ahead keep changing your PIN every hour...do n't make everyone do that.If I found out that others are listening to my voice mail , I 'd be happy that at least one person is interested in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh...come on...#1 and #2 are absurd.If you want to protect your voice mail, go ahead keep changing your PIN every hour...don't make everyone do that.If I found out that others are listening to my voice mail, I'd be happy that at least one person is interested in my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641255</id>
	<title>Re:Everyones Enemy</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1247172660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Outside<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., I mostly read the Chicago Tribune. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they do a good share of reporting on crooked politians (being in good supply around here). If I had to pick between politicians and the media, I'd trust the media. They are far less harmful, and they can even occasionally be helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside /. , I mostly read the Chicago Tribune .
Sure , they are n't perfect , but they do a good share of reporting on crooked politians ( being in good supply around here ) .
If I had to pick between politicians and the media , I 'd trust the media .
They are far less harmful , and they can even occasionally be helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside /., I mostly read the Chicago Tribune.
Sure, they aren't perfect, but they do a good share of reporting on crooked politians (being in good supply around here).
If I had to pick between politicians and the media, I'd trust the media.
They are far less harmful, and they can even occasionally be helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640137</id>
	<title>Re:Not much news here</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1247168400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?</i>
</p><p>For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
</p><p>Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone interested in their privacy ca n't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone , why would they be upset when someone else listens ?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I 'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house .
Not actively keeping someone out , is in no way the same thing as inviting them in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?
For the same reason if I leave my front door open I'd be upset to find someone wandering around inside my house.
Not actively keeping someone out, is in no way the same thing as inviting them in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640559</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1247169900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.</p></div><p>No, the content of the show is evidence that most, not all, are guilty of at least one crime...evading police or resisting arrest. When you're getting arrested and you fight with the police you're committing a crime regardless if you committed the one they were arresting you for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.No , the content of the show is evidence that most , not all , are guilty of at least one crime...evading police or resisting arrest .
When you 're getting arrested and you fight with the police you 're committing a crime regardless if you committed the one they were arresting you for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.No, the content of the show is evidence that most, not all, are guilty of at least one crime...evading police or resisting arrest.
When you're getting arrested and you fight with the police you're committing a crime regardless if you committed the one they were arresting you for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643001</id>
	<title>Re:They will get away with this.</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1247136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex.</p></div><p>Nope, they paid someone to wear a camera into one of Max Mosley's spanking sessions; no sex involved. Then they only paid her half of what they promised and printed a bunch of BS about it being Nazi-themed that was entirely untrue (but was what they wanted the story to be). Finally, they tried to blackmail the other women involved into giving their stories by threatening to splash their names, photos and other personal information across the front page if they didn't. Quite impressive, though since the press don't eat their own the gory details weren't that well publicised.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley ( 67 ) was having sex.Nope , they paid someone to wear a camera into one of Max Mosley 's spanking sessions ; no sex involved .
Then they only paid her half of what they promised and printed a bunch of BS about it being Nazi-themed that was entirely untrue ( but was what they wanted the story to be ) .
Finally , they tried to blackmail the other women involved into giving their stories by threatening to splash their names , photos and other personal information across the front page if they did n't .
Quite impressive , though since the press do n't eat their own the gory details were n't that well publicised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex.Nope, they paid someone to wear a camera into one of Max Mosley's spanking sessions; no sex involved.
Then they only paid her half of what they promised and printed a bunch of BS about it being Nazi-themed that was entirely untrue (but was what they wanted the story to be).
Finally, they tried to blackmail the other women involved into giving their stories by threatening to splash their names, photos and other personal information across the front page if they didn't.
Quite impressive, though since the press don't eat their own the gory details weren't that well publicised.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640879</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1247171280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One newspaper alleges that another did this. Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?</i></p><p>That's right! You can't trust the MSM gotcha media! A newspaper putting its reputation on the line isn't enough. After all, they do things like break into people's voice-mail! They're all crooked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One newspaper alleges that another did this .
Why does the summary state , without qualification , that it occurred ? That 's right !
You ca n't trust the MSM gotcha media !
A newspaper putting its reputation on the line is n't enough .
After all , they do things like break into people 's voice-mail !
They 're all crooked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One newspaper alleges that another did this.
Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?That's right!
You can't trust the MSM gotcha media!
A newspaper putting its reputation on the line isn't enough.
After all, they do things like break into people's voice-mail!
They're all crooked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28645995</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1247161080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm pretty sure that Vodafone won't allow access from other phone numbers until you change your password from the default. I'm surprised that isn't the norm with all the privacy legislation in the UK these days.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers ( if that is at all possible ) I 'm pretty sure that Vodafone wo n't allow access from other phone numbers until you change your password from the default .
I 'm surprised that is n't the norm with all the privacy legislation in the UK these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)
I'm pretty sure that Vodafone won't allow access from other phone numbers until you change your password from the default.
I'm surprised that isn't the norm with all the privacy legislation in the UK these days.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639743</id>
	<title>Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications (by way of PHORM) <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/19/phorm\_petition\_response/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">nothing is done</a> [theregister.co.uk], but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.<br>either intercepting peoples communication (of any kind) is illegal or its not, and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ?<br>my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its "different"</p><p>after all they keep telling us if you have nothing to hide....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications ( by way of PHORM ) nothing is done [ theregister.co.uk ] , but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.either intercepting peoples communication ( of any kind ) is illegal or its not , and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ? my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its " different " after all they keep telling us if you have nothing to hide... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications (by way of PHORM) nothing is done [theregister.co.uk], but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.either intercepting peoples communication (of any kind) is illegal or its not, and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ?my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its "different"after all they keep telling us if you have nothing to hide....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641141</id>
	<title>did this a long time ago</title>
	<author>RemoWilliams84</author>
	<datestamp>1247172180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was in highschool and cellphones were just getting big, we used to call our friends phones and hit the button to go straight to voicemail.  Then we'd try the default pin to log in.  If they didn't change it, we would change the greeting message to something funny(usually disgusting) and change the password on them.  It was hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was in highschool and cellphones were just getting big , we used to call our friends phones and hit the button to go straight to voicemail .
Then we 'd try the default pin to log in .
If they did n't change it , we would change the greeting message to something funny ( usually disgusting ) and change the password on them .
It was hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was in highschool and cellphones were just getting big, we used to call our friends phones and hit the button to go straight to voicemail.
Then we'd try the default pin to log in.
If they didn't change it, we would change the greeting message to something funny(usually disgusting) and change the password on them.
It was hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640335</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247169120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because they're <i>corporate</i> media and it serves their interest to keep your mind off of important issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because they 're corporate media and it serves their interest to keep your mind off of important issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because they're corporate media and it serves their interest to keep your mind off of important issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559</id>
	<title>Not much news here</title>
	<author>Hutz</author>
	<datestamp>1247166240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, they "hacked" in using the default passwords?  If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they " hacked " in using the default passwords ?
If someone interested in their privacy ca n't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone , why would they be upset when someone else listens ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they "hacked" in using the default passwords?
If someone interested in their privacy can't be bothered to figure out how to change their own password on their phone, why would they be upset when someone else listens?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639873</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1247167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why didn't the police notify the general public that reporters were using this trick, and advise all cell phone users to set their PINs properly?  I mean, aren't the police there to "protect and serve?"
</p><p>Or, are the police using this trick, as well, and didn't want to go public with a method that they are using to snoop on people, without any tap warrant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why did n't the police notify the general public that reporters were using this trick , and advise all cell phone users to set their PINs properly ?
I mean , are n't the police there to " protect and serve ?
" Or , are the police using this trick , as well , and did n't want to go public with a method that they are using to snoop on people , without any tap warrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why didn't the police notify the general public that reporters were using this trick, and advise all cell phone users to set their PINs properly?
I mean, aren't the police there to "protect and serve?
"
Or, are the police using this trick, as well, and didn't want to go public with a method that they are using to snoop on people, without any tap warrant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"? People always assume that those accused are guilty.
Look at COPS on TV. They have a disclaimer that says "all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.
Disclaimers are so common and superfluous* that nobody pays attention to them anymore.
<br> <br>
*: Not all disclaimers are superfluous</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it make a difference if they had said " allegedly " ?
People always assume that those accused are guilty .
Look at COPS on TV .
They have a disclaimer that says " all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law " but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty .
Disclaimers are so common and superfluous * that nobody pays attention to them anymore .
* : Not all disclaimers are superfluous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"?
People always assume that those accused are guilty.
Look at COPS on TV.
They have a disclaimer that says "all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.
Disclaimers are so common and superfluous* that nobody pays attention to them anymore.
*: Not all disclaimers are superfluous</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642383</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>GoChickenFat</author>
	<datestamp>1247134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I don't give a crap if someone listens to my voicemail?  Why annoy me with all of those steps?  It's my choice to not update my pin code.  Why does every fricken thing need a nanny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I do n't give a crap if someone listens to my voicemail ?
Why annoy me with all of those steps ?
It 's my choice to not update my pin code .
Why does every fricken thing need a nanny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I don't give a crap if someone listens to my voicemail?
Why annoy me with all of those steps?
It's my choice to not update my pin code.
Why does every fricken thing need a nanny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643659</id>
	<title>bad tag</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1247139780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this story tagged "republicans"?</p><p>The events in question (assuming they happened) were not in the US, did not involve members of any US political party, etc. The link here is thin; accusations of wrongdoing by a company whose parent company is run by a guy who has another company in another country that has a news show that some democrats think is too cozy with the republicans. I know that some people hate Fox news and think it (and by association, its boss Mr. Murdoch) are in the tank for the Republicans, but by that reasoning any negative news story involving any business units associated with any other US media corp could be tagged "democrats". Murdoch goes where the market takes him (Fox news fills a niche everybody else was ignoring), which is why he was getting so chummy with Hillary Clinton early in last year's presidential cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this story tagged " republicans " ? The events in question ( assuming they happened ) were not in the US , did not involve members of any US political party , etc .
The link here is thin ; accusations of wrongdoing by a company whose parent company is run by a guy who has another company in another country that has a news show that some democrats think is too cozy with the republicans .
I know that some people hate Fox news and think it ( and by association , its boss Mr. Murdoch ) are in the tank for the Republicans , but by that reasoning any negative news story involving any business units associated with any other US media corp could be tagged " democrats " .
Murdoch goes where the market takes him ( Fox news fills a niche everybody else was ignoring ) , which is why he was getting so chummy with Hillary Clinton early in last year 's presidential cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this story tagged "republicans"?The events in question (assuming they happened) were not in the US, did not involve members of any US political party, etc.
The link here is thin; accusations of wrongdoing by a company whose parent company is run by a guy who has another company in another country that has a news show that some democrats think is too cozy with the republicans.
I know that some people hate Fox news and think it (and by association, its boss Mr. Murdoch) are in the tank for the Republicans, but by that reasoning any negative news story involving any business units associated with any other US media corp could be tagged "democrats".
Murdoch goes where the market takes him (Fox news fills a niche everybody else was ignoring), which is why he was getting so chummy with Hillary Clinton early in last year's presidential cycle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642271</id>
	<title>Re:Not much news here</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1247134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That open door is on your private property.  That poorly secured voicemail is on a system that is legally accessible to all of the provider's customers.  "Your" voicemail is NOT your property.  This is an issue between the provider, the "hacker", their contract (if there is one), and the property/contract rights enforcer (government).  It should have nothing to do with the celebrity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That open door is on your private property .
That poorly secured voicemail is on a system that is legally accessible to all of the provider 's customers .
" Your " voicemail is NOT your property .
This is an issue between the provider , the " hacker " , their contract ( if there is one ) , and the property/contract rights enforcer ( government ) .
It should have nothing to do with the celebrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That open door is on your private property.
That poorly secured voicemail is on a system that is legally accessible to all of the provider's customers.
"Your" voicemail is NOT your property.
This is an issue between the provider, the "hacker", their contract (if there is one), and the property/contract rights enforcer (government).
It should have nothing to do with the celebrity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639835</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA - default passwords</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1247167260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, pretty boring actually. Furthermore, all you've got to do is set a PIN number and this won't work anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , pretty boring actually .
Furthermore , all you 've got to do is set a PIN number and this wo n't work anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, pretty boring actually.
Furthermore, all you've got to do is set a PIN number and this won't work anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28644223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28648315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28645995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28658647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_1740253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28644223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28658647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28648315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640927
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28646091
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28643725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28642383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28640323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28641427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28645995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_1740253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_1740253.28639509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
