<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_1444256</id>
	<title>CIA Invests In Firm That Datamines Social Networks</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256050320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from <em>Wired</em>: <i>"In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/">putting cash into Visible Technologies</a>, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It's part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using 'open source intelligence' &mdash; information that's publicly available... Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. (It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what's being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords. 'That's kind of the basic step &mdash; get in and monitor,' says company senior vice president Blake Cahill. Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.) Finally, Visible gives users a chance to tag posts, forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface."</i>Apropos: Another anonymous reader points out an article making the point that <a href="http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1324">users don't even realize how much private information they're sharing over these services</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired : " In-Q-Tel , the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community , is putting cash into Visible Technologies , a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media .
It 's part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using 'open source intelligence '    information that 's publicly available... Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day , scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs , online forums , Flickr , YouTube , Twitter and Amazon .
( It does n't touch closed social networks , like Facebook , at the moment .
) Customers get customized , real-time feeds of what 's being said on these sites , based on a series of keywords .
'That 's kind of the basic step    get in and monitor, ' says company senior vice president Blake Cahill .
Then Visible 'scores ' each post , labeling it as positive or negative , mixed or neutral .
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is .
( 'Trying to determine who really matters, ' as Cahill puts it .
) Finally , Visible gives users a chance to tag posts , forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface .
" Apropos : Another anonymous reader points out an article making the point that users do n't even realize how much private information they 're sharing over these services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired: "In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media.
It's part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using 'open source intelligence' — information that's publicly available... Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon.
(It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.
) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what's being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords.
'That's kind of the basic step — get in and monitor,' says company senior vice president Blake Cahill.
Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral.
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is.
('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.
) Finally, Visible gives users a chance to tag posts, forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface.
"Apropos: Another anonymous reader points out an article making the point that users don't even realize how much private information they're sharing over these services.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808837</id>
	<title>Re:positive or negative, mixed or neutral based on</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1256056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would they rate something like this: "The last president sucked big time - and he's a stooge for oil barons!"</p></div><p>They wouldn't rate it at all.  As soon as their filters hit "<i>The last president sucked...</i>", the signal to noise ratio will fall to zero and they'll abandon the Tweet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would they rate something like this : " The last president sucked big time - and he 's a stooge for oil barons !
" They would n't rate it at all .
As soon as their filters hit " The last president sucked... " , the signal to noise ratio will fall to zero and they 'll abandon the Tweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would they rate something like this: "The last president sucked big time - and he's a stooge for oil barons!
"They wouldn't rate it at all.
As soon as their filters hit "The last president sucked...", the signal to noise ratio will fall to zero and they'll abandon the Tweet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809255</id>
	<title>Is it an investment...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can take what you learn and pull out the most embarrassing things and use it to blackmail prominent people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can take what you learn and pull out the most embarrassing things and use it to blackmail prominent people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can take what you learn and pull out the most embarrassing things and use it to blackmail prominent people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808181</id>
	<title>!Anonymous.</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt...</p></div><p>Anonymous to <em>us</em>, maybe...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt...Anonymous to us , maybe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt...Anonymous to us, maybe...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811263</id>
	<title>What no backdoor into Windows ??</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1256064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure the CIA has had open door access to Windows for decades. <br>
I'm equally sure that everything that is typed into Google search or mail or desktop, gets to the CIA immediately.<br>
I guess facebook, twitter &amp; myspace are easy targets. I'm sure they can datamine beyond any privacy settings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the CIA has had open door access to Windows for decades .
I 'm equally sure that everything that is typed into Google search or mail or desktop , gets to the CIA immediately .
I guess facebook , twitter &amp; myspace are easy targets .
I 'm sure they can datamine beyond any privacy settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the CIA has had open door access to Windows for decades.
I'm equally sure that everything that is typed into Google search or mail or desktop, gets to the CIA immediately.
I guess facebook, twitter &amp; myspace are easy targets.
I'm sure they can datamine beyond any privacy settings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812795</id>
	<title>Re:!Anonymous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, Visible has rated 'anonymous' as being highly influential among slashdot users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , Visible has rated 'anonymous ' as being highly influential among slashdot users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, Visible has rated 'anonymous' as being highly influential among slashdot users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810299</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry for the crawler</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1256060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm just wondering what they'll do when it hits 4chan. Do they block that, or do they send all that to the FBI &amp; let <b>them</b> wade thru the pedobear posts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations .
I 'm just wondering what they 'll do when it hits 4chan .
Do they block that , or do they send all that to the FBI &amp; let them wade thru the pedobear posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations.
I'm just wondering what they'll do when it hits 4chan.
Do they block that, or do they send all that to the FBI &amp; let them wade thru the pedobear posts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593</id>
	<title>Why is this considered an YRO issue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway. All this seems to do is aggregate it. If you post it in a public forum, you shouldn't care who uses it or how. Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping, who cares? I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.</p><p>Besides, I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low, so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.</p><p>The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway .
All this seems to do is aggregate it .
If you post it in a public forum , you should n't care who uses it or how .
Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping , who cares ?
I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.Besides , I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low , so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway.
All this seems to do is aggregate it.
If you post it in a public forum, you shouldn't care who uses it or how.
Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping, who cares?
I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.Besides, I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low, so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810507</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up. Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments. "</p><p>So they are catching up to Political America...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online , and the tools to do it are starting to show up .
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments .
" So they are catching up to Political America.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up.
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.
"So they are catching up to Political America...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810185</id>
	<title>Facebook &amp; CIA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment"</p><p>Hahaha! You do realize that the CIA is an investor in Facebook, right? Of course they mine that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It does n't touch closed social networks , like Facebook , at the moment " Hahaha !
You do realize that the CIA is an investor in Facebook , right ?
Of course they mine that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment"Hahaha!
You do realize that the CIA is an investor in Facebook, right?
Of course they mine that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808381</id>
	<title>In-Q-Tel?</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1256054880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have about a hundred of their Box Car Willie records!<br> <br>...and they probably have about a thousand of mine!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rimshot</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have about a hundred of their Box Car Willie records !
...and they probably have about a thousand of mine !
/rimshot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have about a hundred of their Box Car Willie records!
...and they probably have about a thousand of mine!
/rimshot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779</id>
	<title>Re:forget privacy, it's a waste of money</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1256056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right?</i></p><p>Well, it would, but your user number has too many digits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely my high slashdot karma means I 'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right ? Well , it would , but your user number has too many digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right?Well, it would, but your user number has too many digits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808741</id>
	<title>Galois Lattices and Social Networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courtesy of Google: <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=\%22galois+lattices\%22+\%22social+networks\%22&amp;btnG=Search" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">galois lattices and social networks</a> [google.com].</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>Philboyd Studge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courtesy of Google : galois lattices and social networks [ google.com ] .Yours In Ashgabat,Philboyd Studge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courtesy of Google: galois lattices and social networks [google.com].Yours In Ashgabat,Philboyd Studge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808677</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1256055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; [Can somebody tell me] Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?"</p><p>Because work carried out in the private sector is more efficient than work carried out in the public sector.</p><p>See: <a href="http://news.google.com/news/search?q=state+pension+liabilities" title="google.com">http://news.google.com/news/search?q=state+pension+liabilities</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; [ Can somebody tell me ] Why a US government agency needs an " investment arm ?
" Because work carried out in the private sector is more efficient than work carried out in the public sector.See : http : //news.google.com/news/search ? q = state + pension + liabilities [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; [Can somebody tell me] Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?
"Because work carried out in the private sector is more efficient than work carried out in the public sector.See: http://news.google.com/news/search?q=state+pension+liabilities [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808291</id>
	<title>interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In-Q-Tel<br>Al-Q-Ida<br>C-I-A<br>this is going to be fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In-Q-TelAl-Q-IdaC-I-Athis is going to be fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In-Q-TelAl-Q-IdaC-I-Athis is going to be fun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809861</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1256059620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?"</p></div></blockquote><p>
To help fund off the books black ops projects, of course.  Can't exactly go before the House Budget Committee and request multiple millions for bribe money to be used on foreign dictators, now, can you?  And to provide plausible deniability, like 'Air America' back during the Vietnam days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why a US government agency needs an " investment arm ?
" To help fund off the books black ops projects , of course .
Ca n't exactly go before the House Budget Committee and request multiple millions for bribe money to be used on foreign dictators , now , can you ?
And to provide plausible deniability , like 'Air America ' back during the Vietnam days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?
"
To help fund off the books black ops projects, of course.
Can't exactly go before the House Budget Committee and request multiple millions for bribe money to be used on foreign dictators, now, can you?
And to provide plausible deniability, like 'Air America' back during the Vietnam days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808457</id>
	<title>Now would be a good time for goatse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they mention online forums, I would assume they are data mining slashdot as well.</p><p>I say we dedicate one story to flood goatse redirects in the comments.</p><p>That'll spice up their database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they mention online forums , I would assume they are data mining slashdot as well.I say we dedicate one story to flood goatse redirects in the comments.That 'll spice up their database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they mention online forums, I would assume they are data mining slashdot as well.I say we dedicate one story to flood goatse redirects in the comments.That'll spice up their database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811711</id>
	<title>Re:forget privacy, it's a waste of money</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256065860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So CmdrTaco is the most influential man on the planet? We're doomed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So CmdrTaco is the most influential man on the planet ?
We 're doomed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So CmdrTaco is the most influential man on the planet?
We're doomed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</id>
	<title>Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a TON of companies that are trying to datamine social media for a variety of reasons-  I'm posting anonymously because I work for a company that makes one of these products.</p><p>What is interesting is companies that make consumer products all want these tools to be able to track the companies interaction with the consumer-  these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call "misinformation", but in actuality is just anything where the company is painted in a bad light.  Let me be clear:  Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up.  Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.  </p><p>I predict not far in the future there is going to be a push for owners of social media sites to have some control over who can index their content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a TON of companies that are trying to datamine social media for a variety of reasons- I 'm posting anonymously because I work for a company that makes one of these products.What is interesting is companies that make consumer products all want these tools to be able to track the companies interaction with the consumer- these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call " misinformation " , but in actuality is just anything where the company is painted in a bad light .
Let me be clear : Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online , and the tools to do it are starting to show up .
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments .
I predict not far in the future there is going to be a push for owners of social media sites to have some control over who can index their content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a TON of companies that are trying to datamine social media for a variety of reasons-  I'm posting anonymously because I work for a company that makes one of these products.What is interesting is companies that make consumer products all want these tools to be able to track the companies interaction with the consumer-  these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call "misinformation", but in actuality is just anything where the company is painted in a bad light.
Let me be clear:  Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up.
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.
I predict not far in the future there is going to be a push for owners of social media sites to have some control over who can index their content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211</id>
	<title>some people are stupid...</title>
	<author>cryoman23</author>
	<datestamp>1256054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>on sites like twitter u just don't go and tell/fill in personal information... and if its mandatory scrap the site</htmltext>
<tokenext>on sites like twitter u just do n't go and tell/fill in personal information... and if its mandatory scrap the site</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on sites like twitter u just don't go and tell/fill in personal information... and if its mandatory scrap the site</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641</id>
	<title>Motivation?</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1256055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0? Where the best party is on frat row? What Joe Blow's opinion is on policy x vs. policy y? Grandma's photo of Fluffy? I would imagine those truly interested in acts of Federal Offense would avoid large, preexisting cross-linked networks like this. If anything, motivation is more towards being a Surveillance State, or to catch some technologically ignorant people doing really bad things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0 ?
Where the best party is on frat row ?
What Joe Blow 's opinion is on policy x vs. policy y ?
Grandma 's photo of Fluffy ?
I would imagine those truly interested in acts of Federal Offense would avoid large , preexisting cross-linked networks like this .
If anything , motivation is more towards being a Surveillance State , or to catch some technologically ignorant people doing really bad things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0?
Where the best party is on frat row?
What Joe Blow's opinion is on policy x vs. policy y?
Grandma's photo of Fluffy?
I would imagine those truly interested in acts of Federal Offense would avoid large, preexisting cross-linked networks like this.
If anything, motivation is more towards being a Surveillance State, or to catch some technologically ignorant people doing really bad things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812119</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256067180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call "misinformation"</i></p><p>You see it at slashdot all the time. It's called "shilling". And they do worse here -- they downmod anyone who badmouths their company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call " misinformation " You see it at slashdot all the time .
It 's called " shilling " .
And they do worse here -- they downmod anyone who badmouths their company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these companies are specifically replying back to specific posters in order to stop the spread of what they call "misinformation"You see it at slashdot all the time.
It's called "shilling".
And they do worse here -- they downmod anyone who badmouths their company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811881</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;people whose soul job</p><p>now that's what I call freudian slip</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; people whose soul jobnow that 's what I call freudian slip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;people whose soul jobnow that's what I call freudian slip</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812109</id>
	<title>OH SHI-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>normally the US lags behind the EU in stupid decisions by about a few months...

that was fast.


still waiting on news for canada's orwellian state.

now correct me if I'm wrong, but since a third party company will be doing this, won't it be illegal? a nongovernmental force monitoring and violating privacy laws... how are they going to change the law to accomidate this atrocity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>normally the US lags behind the EU in stupid decisions by about a few months.. . that was fast .
still waiting on news for canada 's orwellian state .
now correct me if I 'm wrong , but since a third party company will be doing this , wo n't it be illegal ?
a nongovernmental force monitoring and violating privacy laws... how are they going to change the law to accomidate this atrocity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>normally the US lags behind the EU in stupid decisions by about a few months...

that was fast.
still waiting on news for canada's orwellian state.
now correct me if I'm wrong, but since a third party company will be doing this, won't it be illegal?
a nongovernmental force monitoring and violating privacy laws... how are they going to change the law to accomidate this atrocity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808717</id>
	<title>#irc.Trolltalk.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">NIGGER ASSOCIATION Others what to GNAA (GAY NIGGER</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>NIGGER ASSOCIATION Others what to GNAA ( GAY NIGGER [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIGGER ASSOCIATION Others what to GNAA (GAY NIGGER [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809311</id>
	<title>It doesn't touch closed social networks . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1256057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.)</p> </div><p>More like, they're not <b>admitting</b> touching them . . . at the moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( It does n't touch closed social networks , like Facebook , at the moment .
) More like , they 're not admitting touching them .
. .
at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(It doesn't touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.
) More like, they're not admitting touching them .
. .
at the moment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808393</id>
	<title>Your Rights Online</title>
	<author>SloppySevenths</author>
	<datestamp>1256054940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious if they poll slashdot comments for articles in the "Your Rights Online" category.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious if they poll slashdot comments for articles in the " Your Rights Online " category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious if they poll slashdot comments for articles in the "Your Rights Online" category.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301</id>
	<title>positive or negative, mixed or neutral based on..?</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1256054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; "...labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral."  Positive or negative based on who's point of view? How would they rate something like this: "The last president sucked big time - and he's a stooge for oil barons!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " ...labeling it as positive or negative , mixed or neutral .
" Positive or negative based on who 's point of view ?
How would they rate something like this : " The last president sucked big time - and he 's a stooge for oil barons !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "...labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral.
"  Positive or negative based on who's point of view?
How would they rate something like this: "The last president sucked big time - and he's a stooge for oil barons!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810647</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>j. andrew rogers</author>
	<datestamp>1256062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel are not redundant with conventional venture capital and were created to fill some clear funding gaps in the existing technology venture markets.</p><p>First and foremost, they tend to invest in ventures with technologies that are sufficiently advanced or unusual that normal VCs will promptly ignore the venture. This came out of a realization that really advanced computer science and hardware technologies that the agencies needed were being routinely ignored in the traditional venture markets because VCs don't understand technologies that don't play buzzword bingo or which don't follow the herd. Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel have a much stronger long-term technology vision and in-depth technical competency than traditional VC firms, which can be beneficial if you are building a startup based on serious geekery.</p><p>Second, they provide an inside track into organizations that would otherwise be very difficult for a startup with no ties to the defense industry to sell into. There are big customers of advanced computer and software technologies in the defense organizations, but getting a product in front of the right people is no easy task if you are an outsider.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why a US government agency needs an " investment arm ?
" Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel are not redundant with conventional venture capital and were created to fill some clear funding gaps in the existing technology venture markets.First and foremost , they tend to invest in ventures with technologies that are sufficiently advanced or unusual that normal VCs will promptly ignore the venture .
This came out of a realization that really advanced computer science and hardware technologies that the agencies needed were being routinely ignored in the traditional venture markets because VCs do n't understand technologies that do n't play buzzword bingo or which do n't follow the herd .
Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel have a much stronger long-term technology vision and in-depth technical competency than traditional VC firms , which can be beneficial if you are building a startup based on serious geekery.Second , they provide an inside track into organizations that would otherwise be very difficult for a startup with no ties to the defense industry to sell into .
There are big customers of advanced computer and software technologies in the defense organizations , but getting a product in front of the right people is no easy task if you are an outsider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?
"Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel are not redundant with conventional venture capital and were created to fill some clear funding gaps in the existing technology venture markets.First and foremost, they tend to invest in ventures with technologies that are sufficiently advanced or unusual that normal VCs will promptly ignore the venture.
This came out of a realization that really advanced computer science and hardware technologies that the agencies needed were being routinely ignored in the traditional venture markets because VCs don't understand technologies that don't play buzzword bingo or which don't follow the herd.
Investment vehicles like In-Q-Tel have a much stronger long-term technology vision and in-depth technical competency than traditional VC firms, which can be beneficial if you are building a startup based on serious geekery.Second, they provide an inside track into organizations that would otherwise be very difficult for a startup with no ties to the defense industry to sell into.
There are big customers of advanced computer and software technologies in the defense organizations, but getting a product in front of the right people is no easy task if you are an outsider.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810061</id>
	<title>Hey Visible Technologies:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're scraping this, then this is a false comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're scraping this , then this is a false comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're scraping this, then this is a false comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808787</id>
	<title>Here's why</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>To promote technologies that will add to the CIA's arsenal.</li><li>To buy into companies that allow them to circumnavigate Constitutional provisions against spying on American citizens.</li> </ol><p>For example, the second one, the CIA <i>loves</i> companies like <a href="http://www.choicepoint.com/" title="choicepoint.com" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [choicepoint.com] and the credit bureaus because <i>they</i> can legally collect information on private citizens. Then the CIA "buys" the information from them and they can go to Congress and say, "Nope! We are NOT spying on Americans." - at least that's the answer to the Congressmen that aren't afraid to appear to be "weak on terrorism" or afraid to be lambasted by ignorant talk show hosts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To promote technologies that will add to the CIA 's arsenal.To buy into companies that allow them to circumnavigate Constitutional provisions against spying on American citizens .
For example , the second one , the CIA loves companies like this one [ choicepoint.com ] and the credit bureaus because they can legally collect information on private citizens .
Then the CIA " buys " the information from them and they can go to Congress and say , " Nope !
We are NOT spying on Americans .
" - at least that 's the answer to the Congressmen that are n't afraid to appear to be " weak on terrorism " or afraid to be lambasted by ignorant talk show hosts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> To promote technologies that will add to the CIA's arsenal.To buy into companies that allow them to circumnavigate Constitutional provisions against spying on American citizens.
For example, the second one, the CIA loves companies like this one [choicepoint.com] and the credit bureaus because they can legally collect information on private citizens.
Then the CIA "buys" the information from them and they can go to Congress and say, "Nope!
We are NOT spying on Americans.
" - at least that's the answer to the Congressmen that aren't afraid to appear to be "weak on terrorism" or afraid to be lambasted by ignorant talk show hosts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1256056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may also wonder why they needed to illegally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA\_and\_Contras\_cocaine\_trafficking\_in\_the\_US" title="wikipedia.org">. Or perhaps you might wonder why they would </a> [wikipedia.org]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight\_climax" title="wikipedia.org">dose "their own" citizens with LSD</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I think Zack De La Rocha, The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track "CIA"<br>"Need I say the C.I.A. be criminals in action"</p><p>But given that the same song said that "President Clinton should delete them", I guess it wasn't as popular as it could have been<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) and sadly, since 9/11 they are actually percieved to have a job again. A front job is always a very good thing for a criminal. Nothing like an air of legitimacy to hide criminal minds.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may also wonder why they needed to illegally .
Or perhaps you might wonder why they would [ wikipedia.org ] dose " their own " citizens with LSD [ wikipedia.org ] I think Zack De La Rocha , The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track " CIA " " Need I say the C.I.A .
be criminals in action " But given that the same song said that " President Clinton should delete them " , I guess it was n't as popular as it could have been : ) and sadly , since 9/11 they are actually percieved to have a job again .
A front job is always a very good thing for a criminal .
Nothing like an air of legitimacy to hide criminal minds.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may also wonder why they needed to illegally .
Or perhaps you might wonder why they would  [wikipedia.org]dose "their own" citizens with LSD [wikipedia.org]I think Zack De La Rocha, The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track "CIA""Need I say the C.I.A.
be criminals in action"But given that the same song said that "President Clinton should delete them", I guess it wasn't as popular as it could have been :) and sadly, since 9/11 they are actually percieved to have a job again.
A front job is always a very good thing for a criminal.
Nothing like an air of legitimacy to hide criminal minds.-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808247</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>mayko</author>
	<datestamp>1256054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they really need is an "investment brain."</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they really need is an " investment brain .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they really need is an "investment brain.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812535</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1256068740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mining peoples social networks is almost certainly extremely useful if you can find a person of interest.  You can immediately identify their close associates.</p><p>I'm kind of doubting many serious terrorist or criminals actually use Twitter but I wager all the Iranians who used facebook and twitter to protest a rigged election immediately had their social networks scoured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.  If you are trying to unroll an underground network if you find people that put their social network online must be priceless.</p><p>To put it another way I doubt mining social networks is very useful to combat crime or terrorism but it is probably an exceptional tool for political oppression and to stifle dissent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mining peoples social networks is almost certainly extremely useful if you can find a person of interest .
You can immediately identify their close associates.I 'm kind of doubting many serious terrorist or criminals actually use Twitter but I wager all the Iranians who used facebook and twitter to protest a rigged election immediately had their social networks scoured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards .
If you are trying to unroll an underground network if you find people that put their social network online must be priceless.To put it another way I doubt mining social networks is very useful to combat crime or terrorism but it is probably an exceptional tool for political oppression and to stifle dissent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mining peoples social networks is almost certainly extremely useful if you can find a person of interest.
You can immediately identify their close associates.I'm kind of doubting many serious terrorist or criminals actually use Twitter but I wager all the Iranians who used facebook and twitter to protest a rigged election immediately had their social networks scoured by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
If you are trying to unroll an underground network if you find people that put their social network online must be priceless.To put it another way I doubt mining social networks is very useful to combat crime or terrorism but it is probably an exceptional tool for political oppression and to stifle dissent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810987</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up. Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.</i></p><p>You're right, they are responding to negative comments. In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS. I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections). SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot". They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".</p><p>So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy. If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful. If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be clear : Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online , and the tools to do it are starting to show up .
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.You 're right , they are responding to negative comments .
In fact , I 'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP ( Charter ) and SAS .
I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped ( I have business class and I expect it to remain up ) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion ( I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections ) .
SAS once contacted me ( actually one of their VPs did ) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about " proc gplot " .
They wanted to make sure that I got it " to do my bidding " .So while I am sure that what you are saying is true , I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy .
If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been , I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful .
If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive , I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up.
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.You're right, they are responding to negative comments.
In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS.
I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections).
SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot".
They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy.
If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful.
If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29817305</id>
	<title>So the facebook conspiracy</title>
	<author>TheReal\_sabret00the</author>
	<datestamp>1256046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>does this put that to rest?</htmltext>
<tokenext>does this put that to rest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does this put that to rest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810753</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1256062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We wouldn't be here talking about this if it wasn't for DARPA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would n't be here talking about this if it was n't for DARPA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We wouldn't be here talking about this if it wasn't for DARPA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323</id>
	<title>forget privacy, it's a waste of money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.)</p></div> </blockquote><p>Seems like a redundant effort.  Why not just check the author's karma on slashdot?<br> <br>Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right?  Right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Visible 'scores ' each post , labeling it as positive or negative , mixed or neutral .
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is .
( 'Trying to determine who really matters, ' as Cahill puts it .
) Seems like a redundant effort .
Why not just check the author 's karma on slashdot ?
Surely my high slashdot karma means I 'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right ? Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral.
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is.
('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.
) Seems like a redundant effort.
Why not just check the author's karma on slashdot?
Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right?  Right?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29819531</id>
	<title>Dear CIA,</title>
	<author>Boldizar</author>
	<datestamp>1256061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear CIA,

You&rsquo;ll note that the &ldquo;anarchist&rdquo; in my political views line under Info is prefaced by &ldquo;absurdist.&rdquo; I do believe in &ldquo;fighting&rdquo; the State and the Corporation and the Institution and the Boy Scouts and the Neighbourhood Mothers Association, and generally honouring Thomas Jefferson and Ortega y Gasset when he railed against any collective entity as being soulless, he was one of the Founders, wasn&rsquo;t he?, or at least the blog and Facebook persona that I created for eventually marketing my novel, should it ever come out, does, (blended with the practicality of actually connecting with friends smeared throughout time and space) but only by using boulders (where was I?, how did I get to boulders?) not any sort of dishonourable weapons that could actually succeed at anything other than damaging my big toe.

I am fully aware that any attempt to &ldquo;fight&rdquo; only strengthens you, the CIA, Bernie Kerik, et al., by increasing your budget and decreasing my rights, and so my fighting strategy is to be as weak, useless and nonconfrontational as possible in the hopes of weakening you. In fact, by becoming a complete corporate drone clock punching jellyfish, I hope to eventually make you fall asleep &mdash; which I shall I consider a victory.

How did I get to punching jellyfish?

Anyway, I apologize in advance for triggering your keywords. Please rest assured that I have no influence whatsoever.

Sincerely,
<a href="http://www.boldizar.com/" title="boldizar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.boldizar.com/</a> [boldizar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear CIA , You    ll note that the    anarchist    in my political views line under Info is prefaced by    absurdist.    I do believe in    fighting    the State and the Corporation and the Institution and the Boy Scouts and the Neighbourhood Mothers Association , and generally honouring Thomas Jefferson and Ortega y Gasset when he railed against any collective entity as being soulless , he was one of the Founders , wasn    t he ? , or at least the blog and Facebook persona that I created for eventually marketing my novel , should it ever come out , does , ( blended with the practicality of actually connecting with friends smeared throughout time and space ) but only by using boulders ( where was I ? , how did I get to boulders ?
) not any sort of dishonourable weapons that could actually succeed at anything other than damaging my big toe .
I am fully aware that any attempt to    fight    only strengthens you , the CIA , Bernie Kerik , et al. , by increasing your budget and decreasing my rights , and so my fighting strategy is to be as weak , useless and nonconfrontational as possible in the hopes of weakening you .
In fact , by becoming a complete corporate drone clock punching jellyfish , I hope to eventually make you fall asleep    which I shall I consider a victory .
How did I get to punching jellyfish ?
Anyway , I apologize in advance for triggering your keywords .
Please rest assured that I have no influence whatsoever .
Sincerely , http : //www.boldizar.com/ [ boldizar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear CIA,

You’ll note that the “anarchist” in my political views line under Info is prefaced by “absurdist.” I do believe in “fighting” the State and the Corporation and the Institution and the Boy Scouts and the Neighbourhood Mothers Association, and generally honouring Thomas Jefferson and Ortega y Gasset when he railed against any collective entity as being soulless, he was one of the Founders, wasn’t he?, or at least the blog and Facebook persona that I created for eventually marketing my novel, should it ever come out, does, (blended with the practicality of actually connecting with friends smeared throughout time and space) but only by using boulders (where was I?, how did I get to boulders?
) not any sort of dishonourable weapons that could actually succeed at anything other than damaging my big toe.
I am fully aware that any attempt to “fight” only strengthens you, the CIA, Bernie Kerik, et al., by increasing your budget and decreasing my rights, and so my fighting strategy is to be as weak, useless and nonconfrontational as possible in the hopes of weakening you.
In fact, by becoming a complete corporate drone clock punching jellyfish, I hope to eventually make you fall asleep — which I shall I consider a victory.
How did I get to punching jellyfish?
Anyway, I apologize in advance for triggering your keywords.
Please rest assured that I have no influence whatsoever.
Sincerely,
http://www.boldizar.com/ [boldizar.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808219</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've got your own little money tree you aren't as tied to budgets set by someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got your own little money tree you are n't as tied to budgets set by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got your own little money tree you aren't as tied to budgets set by someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809017</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this considered an YRO issue?</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading publicly-posted comments is not a problem. At least, not to me. (I do know some thickies that are shocked, SHOCKED, that someone besides their BFFs can read their social networking crap.) Anyways, sure, public posting is public. Even lolcat knows that.</p><p>But agencies of state power reading, aggregating, correlating, and scoring... drawing secret conclusions based on hidden agendas and closed criteria... that's disturbing. Shades of J. Edgar Hoover's secret file cabinet and COINTELPRO and the basement of Stasi HQ.</p><p>This sounds naive, but on principle this should be opt-in only. If this were for marketing purposes, it certainly would be. But for stuff which actually matters (life, liberty, et al.), it's beginning to look like non-participation is the only opt-out. And the chilling effect is as effective as any active anti-dissent measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading publicly-posted comments is not a problem .
At least , not to me .
( I do know some thickies that are shocked , SHOCKED , that someone besides their BFFs can read their social networking crap .
) Anyways , sure , public posting is public .
Even lolcat knows that.But agencies of state power reading , aggregating , correlating , and scoring... drawing secret conclusions based on hidden agendas and closed criteria... that 's disturbing .
Shades of J. Edgar Hoover 's secret file cabinet and COINTELPRO and the basement of Stasi HQ.This sounds naive , but on principle this should be opt-in only .
If this were for marketing purposes , it certainly would be .
But for stuff which actually matters ( life , liberty , et al .
) , it 's beginning to look like non-participation is the only opt-out .
And the chilling effect is as effective as any active anti-dissent measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading publicly-posted comments is not a problem.
At least, not to me.
(I do know some thickies that are shocked, SHOCKED, that someone besides their BFFs can read their social networking crap.
) Anyways, sure, public posting is public.
Even lolcat knows that.But agencies of state power reading, aggregating, correlating, and scoring... drawing secret conclusions based on hidden agendas and closed criteria... that's disturbing.
Shades of J. Edgar Hoover's secret file cabinet and COINTELPRO and the basement of Stasi HQ.This sounds naive, but on principle this should be opt-in only.
If this were for marketing purposes, it certainly would be.
But for stuff which actually matters (life, liberty, et al.
), it's beginning to look like non-participation is the only opt-out.
And the chilling effect is as effective as any active anti-dissent measure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811689</id>
	<title>Public information</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256065800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is just that, public. This means even the CIA can use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is just that , public .
This means even the CIA can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is just that, public.
This means even the CIA can use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810849</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic spying?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CIA isn't. Some private company is doing it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).<br><br>If that's not good enough, I'm sure they can always make some vaguely legal request to the private company to ask another private company/organisation and so on to do the dirty work.<br><br>The benefits of outsourcing.<br><br>That's why I find it hilarious when the fanatics keep saying small government will be better than big government.<br><br>If you really think a small government that outsources all the dirty work to private corporations will be better, you're a fool.<br><br>The real problem is quality not quantity. Poor regulation, by the regulators AND by the voters.<br><br>Most people don't seem to realize that. I suppose the problem there again is quality and not quantity either... But quantity wins in democracies - and still the ignorant wonder why those in power refuse to educate properly the people who keep voting them back in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CIA is n't .
Some private company is doing it : ) .If that 's not good enough , I 'm sure they can always make some vaguely legal request to the private company to ask another private company/organisation and so on to do the dirty work.The benefits of outsourcing.That 's why I find it hilarious when the fanatics keep saying small government will be better than big government.If you really think a small government that outsources all the dirty work to private corporations will be better , you 're a fool.The real problem is quality not quantity .
Poor regulation , by the regulators AND by the voters.Most people do n't seem to realize that .
I suppose the problem there again is quality and not quantity either... But quantity wins in democracies - and still the ignorant wonder why those in power refuse to educate properly the people who keep voting them back in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CIA isn't.
Some private company is doing it :).If that's not good enough, I'm sure they can always make some vaguely legal request to the private company to ask another private company/organisation and so on to do the dirty work.The benefits of outsourcing.That's why I find it hilarious when the fanatics keep saying small government will be better than big government.If you really think a small government that outsources all the dirty work to private corporations will be better, you're a fool.The real problem is quality not quantity.
Poor regulation, by the regulators AND by the voters.Most people don't seem to realize that.
I suppose the problem there again is quality and not quantity either... But quantity wins in democracies - and still the ignorant wonder why those in power refuse to educate properly the people who keep voting them back in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815809</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1256038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up. Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.</i> </p><p>You're right, they are responding to negative comments. In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS. I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections). SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot". They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".</p><p>So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy. If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful. If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.</p></div><p>and for every one of these there's a microsoft or GoP astroturfer/astro-modder on slashdot poisoning the well.</p><p>Just look, for instance, at the dramatic change in the way microsoft related titles are handled on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for instance. Blatant, extra-fluffy astroturf immediately makes it to +5, anything remotely negative gets subjected to a massive war both against deliberately disingenuous replies and as the real mod community fights with sock puppet accounts to keep the post relevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be clear : Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online , and the tools to do it are starting to show up .
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments .
You 're right , they are responding to negative comments .
In fact , I 'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP ( Charter ) and SAS .
I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped ( I have business class and I expect it to remain up ) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion ( I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections ) .
SAS once contacted me ( actually one of their VPs did ) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about " proc gplot " .
They wanted to make sure that I got it " to do my bidding " .So while I am sure that what you are saying is true , I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy .
If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been , I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful .
If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive , I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.and for every one of these there 's a microsoft or GoP astroturfer/astro-modder on slashdot poisoning the well.Just look , for instance , at the dramatic change in the way microsoft related titles are handled on / .
for instance .
Blatant , extra-fluffy astroturf immediately makes it to + 5 , anything remotely negative gets subjected to a massive war both against deliberately disingenuous replies and as the real mod community fights with sock puppet accounts to keep the post relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Let me be clear: Corporate America wants to control everything that is said online, and the tools to do it are starting to show up.
Companies are starting to employ people whose soul job is to look at social media and respond to negative comments.
You're right, they are responding to negative comments.
In fact, I'm impressed with the responses I have received from my ISP (Charter) and SAS.
I posted some pretty pissed off comments about Charter last week when my connection dropped (I have business class and I expect it to remain up) and they not only responded to me on Twitter but they also called me to ensure my connection was back up in a timely fashion (I was up before any of my neighbors with residential connections).
SAS once contacted me (actually one of their VPs did) via e-mail following a Twitter post expressing frustration about "proc gplot".
They wanted to make sure that I got it "to do my bidding".So while I am sure that what you are saying is true, I have not yet seen corporate America do anything with social media except stop negative comments the CORRECT way--by ensuring the customer is happy.
If that sort of customer to company interaction continues in the way it has been, I would say that their attempts are amazingly useful.
If they somehow want to change the course of those discussions forcibly or by spamming with positive, I am sure the backlash--especially with those of us that enjoy the way it currently works--will be phenomenal.and for every one of these there's a microsoft or GoP astroturfer/astro-modder on slashdot poisoning the well.Just look, for instance, at the dramatic change in the way microsoft related titles are handled on /.
for instance.
Blatant, extra-fluffy astroturf immediately makes it to +5, anything remotely negative gets subjected to a massive war both against deliberately disingenuous replies and as the real mod community fights with sock puppet accounts to keep the post relevant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815685</id>
	<title>isn't that cute, but its WRONG!!</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1256037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.)</p></div><p>the correct answer is, C - none of the above!.. they're all on social networks so none of them matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Visible 'scores ' each post , labeling it as positive or negative , mixed or neutral .
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is .
( 'Trying to determine who really matters, ' as Cahill puts it .
) the correct answer is , C - none of the above ! . .
they 're all on social networks so none of them matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral.
It examines how influential a conversation or an author is.
('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.
)the correct answer is, C - none of the above!..
they're all on social networks so none of them matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812065</id>
	<title>Re:Information...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information wants to be bought and paid for. See how dumb that cliche is?</p><p>However, when information isn't free, neither are you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information wants to be bought and paid for .
See how dumb that cliche is ? However , when information is n't free , neither are you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information wants to be bought and paid for.
See how dumb that cliche is?However, when information isn't free, neither are you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810605</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1256061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have thought a bit about control of information, not just corporate control.</p><p>Google is developing a firefox plug-in for adding additional information to established web sites by viewers.  "Helpful comments".  Well, that is google.</p><p>I seem to recall this was done in a less restricted way perhaps five years ago by someone, it went through some courts and was considered legal, basically because it was a user choice to install the plug-in.  Probably got the story from slashdot.</p><p>Writing a fire-fox plug-in is not in my skill set, but I favor this idea.  For requirements, I would start with</p><p>1) user can chose his hosting server<br>2) anonymous<br>3) user moderated, perhaps with a slashdot model, since that is all I am really familiar with.</p><p>The plug-in would on request show a random comment, with a bias on how recent the comment was and moderation state.</p><p>Might actually become widely used.  I am sure the Obama people would like to post anonymous comments on the fox web site.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Running a popular server might even be profitable.</p><p>I would be interested in comments on this idea, particularly requirements comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have thought a bit about control of information , not just corporate control.Google is developing a firefox plug-in for adding additional information to established web sites by viewers .
" Helpful comments " .
Well , that is google.I seem to recall this was done in a less restricted way perhaps five years ago by someone , it went through some courts and was considered legal , basically because it was a user choice to install the plug-in .
Probably got the story from slashdot.Writing a fire-fox plug-in is not in my skill set , but I favor this idea .
For requirements , I would start with1 ) user can chose his hosting server2 ) anonymous3 ) user moderated , perhaps with a slashdot model , since that is all I am really familiar with.The plug-in would on request show a random comment , with a bias on how recent the comment was and moderation state.Might actually become widely used .
I am sure the Obama people would like to post anonymous comments on the fox web site .
: ) Running a popular server might even be profitable.I would be interested in comments on this idea , particularly requirements comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have thought a bit about control of information, not just corporate control.Google is developing a firefox plug-in for adding additional information to established web sites by viewers.
"Helpful comments".
Well, that is google.I seem to recall this was done in a less restricted way perhaps five years ago by someone, it went through some courts and was considered legal, basically because it was a user choice to install the plug-in.
Probably got the story from slashdot.Writing a fire-fox plug-in is not in my skill set, but I favor this idea.
For requirements, I would start with1) user can chose his hosting server2) anonymous3) user moderated, perhaps with a slashdot model, since that is all I am really familiar with.The plug-in would on request show a random comment, with a bias on how recent the comment was and moderation state.Might actually become widely used.
I am sure the Obama people would like to post anonymous comments on the fox web site.
:)Running a popular server might even be profitable.I would be interested in comments on this idea, particularly requirements comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812523</id>
	<title>Re:some people are stupid...</title>
	<author>citylivin</author>
	<datestamp>1256068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe these kinds of softwares, or others like them, will be able to fingerprint you by writing style alone. Alot of people make common grammatical mistakes or typos over and over. For instance, in the previous sentence and generally, i say "alot" instead of a lot. I also do not capitalize certain words. I am sure if you entered all of slashdot into some software programmes, you could very easily determine who my sock puppets are, purely based on writing style alone. Then of course there is the content, when most people will think nothing of mentioning the city or region that they are from. Even their industry. I am sure there are softwares out there which are already trying to gather this kind of data. Hell even i can do it if someone uses an uncommon phrase in more than one post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe these kinds of softwares , or others like them , will be able to fingerprint you by writing style alone .
Alot of people make common grammatical mistakes or typos over and over .
For instance , in the previous sentence and generally , i say " alot " instead of a lot .
I also do not capitalize certain words .
I am sure if you entered all of slashdot into some software programmes , you could very easily determine who my sock puppets are , purely based on writing style alone .
Then of course there is the content , when most people will think nothing of mentioning the city or region that they are from .
Even their industry .
I am sure there are softwares out there which are already trying to gather this kind of data .
Hell even i can do it if someone uses an uncommon phrase in more than one post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe these kinds of softwares, or others like them, will be able to fingerprint you by writing style alone.
Alot of people make common grammatical mistakes or typos over and over.
For instance, in the previous sentence and generally, i say "alot" instead of a lot.
I also do not capitalize certain words.
I am sure if you entered all of slashdot into some software programmes, you could very easily determine who my sock puppets are, purely based on writing style alone.
Then of course there is the content, when most people will think nothing of mentioning the city or region that they are from.
Even their industry.
I am sure there are softwares out there which are already trying to gather this kind of data.
Hell even i can do it if someone uses an uncommon phrase in more than one post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810473</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Zack De La Rocha, The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track "CIA"<br>"Need I say the C.I.A. be criminals in action"</p><p>Said it best, indeed.  Who can match such eloquence, such panache?</p><p>(seriously, you're a fucking idiot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Zack De La Rocha , The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track " CIA " " Need I say the C.I.A .
be criminals in action " Said it best , indeed .
Who can match such eloquence , such panache ?
( seriously , you 're a fucking idiot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Zack De La Rocha, The Last Emperor &amp; KRS-ONE said it best in their track "CIA""Need I say the C.I.A.
be criminals in action"Said it best, indeed.
Who can match such eloquence, such panache?
(seriously, you're a fucking idiot)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810101</id>
	<title>Re:some people are stupid...</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1256060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people on facebook thought i was joking when I said my interests are: "Giving away personal data to the NSA."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people on facebook thought i was joking when I said my interests are : " Giving away personal data to the NSA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people on facebook thought i was joking when I said my interests are: "Giving away personal data to the NSA.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808695</id>
	<title>Information...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Information wants to be free...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Information wants to be free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information wants to be free...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810577</id>
	<title>The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. United States citizens hide from that fact. Evidence: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the\_great\_american\_bubble\_machine" title="rollingstone.com" rel="nofollow">Goldman Sachs</a> [rollingstone.com].

<br> <br>Since the financial crash, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable, and the U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse.

<br> <br>The U.S. government spends more on surveillance than any country, anywhere.

<br> <br>The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any country, anywhere, in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than countries in Europe.

<br> <br>The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 24 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, far more than any other country.

<br> <br>The U.S. government has the highest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_public\_debt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">debt</a> [wikipedia.org] of any country in the history of the world.

<br> <br>The U.S. government spends more on developing weapons than any country in the history of the world.

<br> <br>That's just a very short list of the just some of the major areas of corruption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt .
United States citizens hide from that fact .
Evidence : Goldman Sachs [ rollingstone.com ] .
Since the financial crash , Goldman Sachs has been very profitable , and the U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse .
The U.S. government spends more on surveillance than any country , anywhere .
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any country , anywhere , in the history of the world , over 6 times higher than countries in Europe .
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 24 countries since the end of the 2nd world war , far more than any other country .
The U.S. government has the highest debt [ wikipedia.org ] of any country in the history of the world .
The U.S. government spends more on developing weapons than any country in the history of the world .
That 's just a very short list of the just some of the major areas of corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
United States citizens hide from that fact.
Evidence: Goldman Sachs [rollingstone.com].
Since the financial crash, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable, and the U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse.
The U.S. government spends more on surveillance than any country, anywhere.
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any country, anywhere, in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than countries in Europe.
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 24 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, far more than any other country.
The U.S. government has the highest debt [wikipedia.org] of any country in the history of the world.
The U.S. government spends more on developing weapons than any country in the history of the world.
That's just a very short list of the just some of the major areas of corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810935</id>
	<title>The CIA: Preserving your freedoms</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1256063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>by eliminating them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by eliminating them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by eliminating them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811761</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this considered an YRO issue?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping</i></p><p>Who cares what your policy is? You put your site on the public internet, I'll use it any damned way I see fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scrapingWho cares what your policy is ?
You put your site on the public internet , I 'll use it any damned way I see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scrapingWho cares what your policy is?
You put your site on the public internet, I'll use it any damned way I see fit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811361</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Because US intelligence agencies are probably 10 to 15 years behind in terms of their data gathering and data mining abilities.</p><p>Let me put it to you this way. Would a company like Google, with the amount of data it has and the way it uses it, have been allowed to exist during the cold war? Not a chance. At the very least, Google would have extremely close connections to the establishment and it would be far more likely that it would have found itself coralled, curtailed or shut down by now. In the days when intelligence services were actually intelligent, the porous nature of the internet combined with the archival properties of computers would have been recognised as a powerful combination.</p><p>I would wager that top men in the CIA and indeed FBI can barely use email, and simply cannot fathom the web. Under their watch, Microsoft, Yahoo, Ad agencies, banks, marketers and above all the mighty Google have been allowed to amass compile and index a wealth of information on the populace that would have put the Stazi to shame, and they have not one whit of an idea what is contained there. If Google were an intelligence agency, it would be the most powerful one on earth. If the CIA was a search company, they would be outperformed by undergraduate CS students.</p><p>This speaks to a wider issue of the relevance of the CIA in the current world. It has proven itself incompetent at dealing with terrorists, and modern industrial spies. It cannot even match the capabilities of companies in its own country. The only real foe it ever faced, the USSR, is 20 years in the grave. The organisation is bloated and incompetent, good for the odd coup in a banana republic, but little else.</p><p>Right now, it is trying to find a role for itself in the new world. This initiative says to me that they intend to be the vast indexers and archiver that Google is, trolling people's data and storing it for later use and of course misuse. I'm seeing a future, more J. Edgar Hoover like CIA, armed with 20 years of secrets, scandals and embarrassing connections, making its presence and influence felt in the political, economic and social spheres.</p><p>The CIA should have been downsized after the wall fell. That mistake is going to end up costing the USA in the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why a US government agency needs an " investment arm ?
" Because US intelligence agencies are probably 10 to 15 years behind in terms of their data gathering and data mining abilities.Let me put it to you this way .
Would a company like Google , with the amount of data it has and the way it uses it , have been allowed to exist during the cold war ?
Not a chance .
At the very least , Google would have extremely close connections to the establishment and it would be far more likely that it would have found itself coralled , curtailed or shut down by now .
In the days when intelligence services were actually intelligent , the porous nature of the internet combined with the archival properties of computers would have been recognised as a powerful combination.I would wager that top men in the CIA and indeed FBI can barely use email , and simply can not fathom the web .
Under their watch , Microsoft , Yahoo , Ad agencies , banks , marketers and above all the mighty Google have been allowed to amass compile and index a wealth of information on the populace that would have put the Stazi to shame , and they have not one whit of an idea what is contained there .
If Google were an intelligence agency , it would be the most powerful one on earth .
If the CIA was a search company , they would be outperformed by undergraduate CS students.This speaks to a wider issue of the relevance of the CIA in the current world .
It has proven itself incompetent at dealing with terrorists , and modern industrial spies .
It can not even match the capabilities of companies in its own country .
The only real foe it ever faced , the USSR , is 20 years in the grave .
The organisation is bloated and incompetent , good for the odd coup in a banana republic , but little else.Right now , it is trying to find a role for itself in the new world .
This initiative says to me that they intend to be the vast indexers and archiver that Google is , trolling people 's data and storing it for later use and of course misuse .
I 'm seeing a future , more J. Edgar Hoover like CIA , armed with 20 years of secrets , scandals and embarrassing connections , making its presence and influence felt in the political , economic and social spheres.The CIA should have been downsized after the wall fell .
That mistake is going to end up costing the USA in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?
"Because US intelligence agencies are probably 10 to 15 years behind in terms of their data gathering and data mining abilities.Let me put it to you this way.
Would a company like Google, with the amount of data it has and the way it uses it, have been allowed to exist during the cold war?
Not a chance.
At the very least, Google would have extremely close connections to the establishment and it would be far more likely that it would have found itself coralled, curtailed or shut down by now.
In the days when intelligence services were actually intelligent, the porous nature of the internet combined with the archival properties of computers would have been recognised as a powerful combination.I would wager that top men in the CIA and indeed FBI can barely use email, and simply cannot fathom the web.
Under their watch, Microsoft, Yahoo, Ad agencies, banks, marketers and above all the mighty Google have been allowed to amass compile and index a wealth of information on the populace that would have put the Stazi to shame, and they have not one whit of an idea what is contained there.
If Google were an intelligence agency, it would be the most powerful one on earth.
If the CIA was a search company, they would be outperformed by undergraduate CS students.This speaks to a wider issue of the relevance of the CIA in the current world.
It has proven itself incompetent at dealing with terrorists, and modern industrial spies.
It cannot even match the capabilities of companies in its own country.
The only real foe it ever faced, the USSR, is 20 years in the grave.
The organisation is bloated and incompetent, good for the odd coup in a banana republic, but little else.Right now, it is trying to find a role for itself in the new world.
This initiative says to me that they intend to be the vast indexers and archiver that Google is, trolling people's data and storing it for later use and of course misuse.
I'm seeing a future, more J. Edgar Hoover like CIA, armed with 20 years of secrets, scandals and embarrassing connections, making its presence and influence felt in the political, economic and social spheres.The CIA should have been downsized after the wall fell.
That mistake is going to end up costing the USA in the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29816819</id>
	<title>Re:positive or negative, mixed or neutral based on</title>
	<author>Ghubi</author>
	<datestamp>1256043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I approve of \_\_\_\_\_\_" is a positive statement.<br>"I disapprove of \_\_\_\_\_\_" is a negative statement.<br>"\_\_\_\_\_\_ is awesome" is a positive statement.<br>"\_\_\_\_\_\_ sucks" is a negative statement.</p><p>No point of view is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I approve of \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " is a positive statement .
" I disapprove of \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " is a negative statement .
" \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ is awesome " is a positive statement .
" \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ sucks " is a negative statement.No point of view is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I approve of \_\_\_\_\_\_" is a positive statement.
"I disapprove of \_\_\_\_\_\_" is a negative statement.
"\_\_\_\_\_\_ is awesome" is a positive statement.
"\_\_\_\_\_\_ sucks" is a negative statement.No point of view is required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</id>
	<title>Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1256054040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why a US government agency needs an " investment arm ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why a US government agency needs an "investment arm?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809529</id>
	<title>Re:forget privacy, it's a waste of money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Well, it would, but your user number has too many digits.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Eh, you can't really blame him - some of us held out for a <i>long</i> time, thinking the Internet would always be anonymous.  But then they made it so you didn't have to preview if you were logged in...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it would , but your user number has too many digits .
Eh , you ca n't really blame him - some of us held out for a long time , thinking the Internet would always be anonymous .
But then they made it so you did n't have to preview if you were logged in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Well, it would, but your user number has too many digits.
Eh, you can't really blame him - some of us held out for a long time, thinking the Internet would always be anonymous.
But then they made it so you didn't have to preview if you were logged in...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809467</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this considered an YRO issue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em><br>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway<br></em></p><p>Hello Tony, how is Logan going? Oh also, let me offer you the best earplugs, at the most affordable price! Remember ear damage is not generally not recoverable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anywayHello Tony , how is Logan going ?
Oh also , let me offer you the best earplugs , at the most affordable price !
Remember ear damage is not generally not recoverable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anywayHello Tony, how is Logan going?
Oh also, let me offer you the best earplugs, at the most affordable price!
Remember ear damage is not generally not recoverable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808721</id>
	<title>I feel sorry for the crawler</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crawler is going to get seriously depressed if it crawls YouTube conversations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809257</id>
	<title>YouTube</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1256057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, I feel sorry for whoever gets stuck analyzing the YouTube data. One massive 40-hour-a-week rickroll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , I feel sorry for whoever gets stuck analyzing the YouTube data .
One massive 40-hour-a-week rickroll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, I feel sorry for whoever gets stuck analyzing the YouTube data.
One massive 40-hour-a-week rickroll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810287</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow...way to let a bunch of rappers give you your political ideology.  Tell me, do you hate cops, too?
<br> <br>
You, sir, are an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...way to let a bunch of rappers give you your political ideology .
Tell me , do you hate cops , too ?
You , sir , are an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...way to let a bunch of rappers give you your political ideology.
Tell me, do you hate cops, too?
You, sir, are an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810263</id>
	<title>Which country would not do this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuba?</p><p>Venezuela?</p><p>China?</p><p>Germany, whose secret police is legendary? (wikipedia: "the case was thrown out in 2003 after it was discovered that a number of the NPD's inner circle were in fact undercover agents or informants of the German secret services, like the federal Bundesamt f&#252;r Verfassungsschutz.")</p><p>The UK?</p><p>The EU as a whole?</p><p>Face it - surveillance fits the goal whatever your goals are, as long as those goals aren't SOLELY AND NOTHING BUT "no surveillance"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuba ? Venezuela ? China ? Germany , whose secret police is legendary ?
( wikipedia : " the case was thrown out in 2003 after it was discovered that a number of the NPD 's inner circle were in fact undercover agents or informants of the German secret services , like the federal Bundesamt f   r Verfassungsschutz .
" ) The UK ? The EU as a whole ? Face it - surveillance fits the goal whatever your goals are , as long as those goals are n't SOLELY AND NOTHING BUT " no surveillance "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuba?Venezuela?China?Germany, whose secret police is legendary?
(wikipedia: "the case was thrown out in 2003 after it was discovered that a number of the NPD's inner circle were in fact undercover agents or informants of the German secret services, like the federal Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz.
")The UK?The EU as a whole?Face it - surveillance fits the goal whatever your goals are, as long as those goals aren't SOLELY AND NOTHING BUT "no surveillance"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29813355</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1256072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because in case your haven't noticed the U.S. government has turned in to a gigantic corporation, an extremely corrupt and incompetent corporation at that. There isn't anything resembling a government "of the people" in Washington any more and both parties are equally to blame.  By any definition the U.S. has moved in to the realm of "state capitalism", and again both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible, its been happening for a while but the last couple years it became a fait accompli as breakneck speed.  "State Capitalism" is also known as "Fascism".</p><p>It a unique corporation in that it can garner revenue by:</p><p>A - Extracting it by force from it customer base in the form of taxes.  For a new first if the current health reform bill passes they will force you to spend 10K a year on insurance from a private corporation or face punitive taxes and still have no insurance.</p><p>B - Issuing debt in the form of T Bills which has been a bottomless reservoir of cash as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency and China and Japan keep buying them.  This will soon come to an end. When the dollar is phased out as the reserve current by the rest of the world because they are fed up with American mismanagement the U.S. will have to live within its means and it will be a cataclysm.  The ONLY thing keeping the U.S. out of bankruptcy is the dollar being the reserve currency and China pegging to the dollar by buying U.S. debt.  The U.S. current accounts deficit (the combination of trade deficits and Federal deficits which must be up around $2 trillion this year) would be completely unsustainable otherwise. If the dollar wasn't the reserve currency the U.S. would be in the hands of the IMF now, getting "austerity measures" and IMF loans.</p><p>C - The Fed can just print money which they've been doing at a ferocious pace lately which is why the dollar is tanking and gold is soaring.  If you have any money sitting in a bank account a large percentage of it has disappeared in the last year without most people realizing it.   As proof America is now on the same plane as Zimbabwe the Fed has been printing dollars and immediately turning around and buying U.S. debt (i.e. T-Bills).  When you are printing money to buy your own debt you know your economy is doomed and your country is pretty much a criminal enterprise on par with Robert Mugabe.</p><p>You also know your country is a criminal enterprise when a former Goldman Sachs CEO, while at Goldman Sachs got the law changed to allow 30-1 leverage, and then as Treasury Secretary infused Goldman Sachs with something like $70 billion in free money at tax payers expense with no strings attached and NO debate when 30-1 leverage nearly destroyed them.  It would, no doubt, have devastated our economy if Goldman Sachs had failed which it would have if AIG had failed.  But, it would have been worth it to A) get rid of the cancer that is Goldman Sachs on our economy and to B) maintain the crucial concept of "moral hazard" without which free market Capitalism doesn't work.</p><p>In the system we have now Goldman Sachs is now both an FDIC insured bank and a high flying, gambling investment bank. It is getting billions in Federal guarantees and billions of dollars at 0\% from the Fed, FREE MONEY, which they are gambling on stocks and bonds, making a killing and driving the current market bubble.  They now KNOW if their risky investments crash again they are too big to fail and the taxpayers will just bail them out again. It is head they win, tails we all lose.  When you no longer have moral hazard you no longer have capitalism, you have "state capitalism".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because in case your have n't noticed the U.S. government has turned in to a gigantic corporation , an extremely corrupt and incompetent corporation at that .
There is n't anything resembling a government " of the people " in Washington any more and both parties are equally to blame .
By any definition the U.S. has moved in to the realm of " state capitalism " , and again both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible , its been happening for a while but the last couple years it became a fait accompli as breakneck speed .
" State Capitalism " is also known as " Fascism " .It a unique corporation in that it can garner revenue by : A - Extracting it by force from it customer base in the form of taxes .
For a new first if the current health reform bill passes they will force you to spend 10K a year on insurance from a private corporation or face punitive taxes and still have no insurance.B - Issuing debt in the form of T Bills which has been a bottomless reservoir of cash as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency and China and Japan keep buying them .
This will soon come to an end .
When the dollar is phased out as the reserve current by the rest of the world because they are fed up with American mismanagement the U.S. will have to live within its means and it will be a cataclysm .
The ONLY thing keeping the U.S. out of bankruptcy is the dollar being the reserve currency and China pegging to the dollar by buying U.S. debt. The U.S. current accounts deficit ( the combination of trade deficits and Federal deficits which must be up around $ 2 trillion this year ) would be completely unsustainable otherwise .
If the dollar was n't the reserve currency the U.S. would be in the hands of the IMF now , getting " austerity measures " and IMF loans.C - The Fed can just print money which they 've been doing at a ferocious pace lately which is why the dollar is tanking and gold is soaring .
If you have any money sitting in a bank account a large percentage of it has disappeared in the last year without most people realizing it .
As proof America is now on the same plane as Zimbabwe the Fed has been printing dollars and immediately turning around and buying U.S. debt ( i.e .
T-Bills ) . When you are printing money to buy your own debt you know your economy is doomed and your country is pretty much a criminal enterprise on par with Robert Mugabe.You also know your country is a criminal enterprise when a former Goldman Sachs CEO , while at Goldman Sachs got the law changed to allow 30-1 leverage , and then as Treasury Secretary infused Goldman Sachs with something like $ 70 billion in free money at tax payers expense with no strings attached and NO debate when 30-1 leverage nearly destroyed them .
It would , no doubt , have devastated our economy if Goldman Sachs had failed which it would have if AIG had failed .
But , it would have been worth it to A ) get rid of the cancer that is Goldman Sachs on our economy and to B ) maintain the crucial concept of " moral hazard " without which free market Capitalism does n't work.In the system we have now Goldman Sachs is now both an FDIC insured bank and a high flying , gambling investment bank .
It is getting billions in Federal guarantees and billions of dollars at 0 \ % from the Fed , FREE MONEY , which they are gambling on stocks and bonds , making a killing and driving the current market bubble .
They now KNOW if their risky investments crash again they are too big to fail and the taxpayers will just bail them out again .
It is head they win , tails we all lose .
When you no longer have moral hazard you no longer have capitalism , you have " state capitalism " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because in case your haven't noticed the U.S. government has turned in to a gigantic corporation, an extremely corrupt and incompetent corporation at that.
There isn't anything resembling a government "of the people" in Washington any more and both parties are equally to blame.
By any definition the U.S. has moved in to the realm of "state capitalism", and again both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible, its been happening for a while but the last couple years it became a fait accompli as breakneck speed.
"State Capitalism" is also known as "Fascism".It a unique corporation in that it can garner revenue by:A - Extracting it by force from it customer base in the form of taxes.
For a new first if the current health reform bill passes they will force you to spend 10K a year on insurance from a private corporation or face punitive taxes and still have no insurance.B - Issuing debt in the form of T Bills which has been a bottomless reservoir of cash as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency and China and Japan keep buying them.
This will soon come to an end.
When the dollar is phased out as the reserve current by the rest of the world because they are fed up with American mismanagement the U.S. will have to live within its means and it will be a cataclysm.
The ONLY thing keeping the U.S. out of bankruptcy is the dollar being the reserve currency and China pegging to the dollar by buying U.S. debt.  The U.S. current accounts deficit (the combination of trade deficits and Federal deficits which must be up around $2 trillion this year) would be completely unsustainable otherwise.
If the dollar wasn't the reserve currency the U.S. would be in the hands of the IMF now, getting "austerity measures" and IMF loans.C - The Fed can just print money which they've been doing at a ferocious pace lately which is why the dollar is tanking and gold is soaring.
If you have any money sitting in a bank account a large percentage of it has disappeared in the last year without most people realizing it.
As proof America is now on the same plane as Zimbabwe the Fed has been printing dollars and immediately turning around and buying U.S. debt (i.e.
T-Bills).  When you are printing money to buy your own debt you know your economy is doomed and your country is pretty much a criminal enterprise on par with Robert Mugabe.You also know your country is a criminal enterprise when a former Goldman Sachs CEO, while at Goldman Sachs got the law changed to allow 30-1 leverage, and then as Treasury Secretary infused Goldman Sachs with something like $70 billion in free money at tax payers expense with no strings attached and NO debate when 30-1 leverage nearly destroyed them.
It would, no doubt, have devastated our economy if Goldman Sachs had failed which it would have if AIG had failed.
But, it would have been worth it to A) get rid of the cancer that is Goldman Sachs on our economy and to B) maintain the crucial concept of "moral hazard" without which free market Capitalism doesn't work.In the system we have now Goldman Sachs is now both an FDIC insured bank and a high flying, gambling investment bank.
It is getting billions in Federal guarantees and billions of dollars at 0\% from the Fed, FREE MONEY, which they are gambling on stocks and bonds, making a killing and driving the current market bubble.
They now KNOW if their risky investments crash again they are too big to fail and the taxpayers will just bail them out again.
It is head they win, tails we all lose.
When you no longer have moral hazard you no longer have capitalism, you have "state capitalism".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809203</id>
	<title>Our duty as citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the fact that Big Brother is invested in this company Visible Technologies is known to us, isn't it our duty as citizens to actively try to thwart this service? Shouldn't we all be trying to knock it offline, or somehow prevent them from gathering data?</p><p>I don't see why we just let them exist and operate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the fact that Big Brother is invested in this company Visible Technologies is known to us , is n't it our duty as citizens to actively try to thwart this service ?
Should n't we all be trying to knock it offline , or somehow prevent them from gathering data ? I do n't see why we just let them exist and operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the fact that Big Brother is invested in this company Visible Technologies is known to us, isn't it our duty as citizens to actively try to thwart this service?
Shouldn't we all be trying to knock it offline, or somehow prevent them from gathering data?I don't see why we just let them exist and operate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808481</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the New Amerika Data Mines You....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the New Amerika Data Mines You... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the New Amerika Data Mines You....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29827729</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if they need to pay an arm and a leg for something, they've already got half covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if they need to pay an arm and a leg for something , they 've already got half covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if they need to pay an arm and a leg for something, they've already got half covered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809071</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody tell me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you don't understand is that part of the CIA has ALWAYS had an investment arm, even before the CIA and OSS existed. The CIA was born out of the private intelligence networks already well established by Wall Street, hence why so many of the early CIA was filled and run by Ivy League schools and Yale's Skull and Bones crowd.</p><p>The funny thing is Facebook has long since been implicated as being <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c\_id=5&amp;objectid=10456534" title="nzherald.co.nz">funded indirectly by In-Q-Tel.</a> [nzherald.co.nz] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".</p></div><p>Since 1947 the CIA and other intelligence activities have been more and more privatized. They have always used front companies. Search for the Northwoods Documents, which were authored in the late 1950's.</p><p>Many have argued that E.O 12333 privatized a lot of intelligence work. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you want to know one reason why they do this.</p><p>This is really only news to people who don't pay attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you do n't understand is that part of the CIA has ALWAYS had an investment arm , even before the CIA and OSS existed .
The CIA was born out of the private intelligence networks already well established by Wall Street , hence why so many of the early CIA was filled and run by Ivy League schools and Yale 's Skull and Bones crowd.The funny thing is Facebook has long since been implicated as being funded indirectly by In-Q-Tel .
[ nzherald.co.nz ] The second round of funding into Facebook ( $ US12.7 million ) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners .
Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association , and served on the board with Gilman Louie , CEO of In-Q-Tel , a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999 .
One of the company 's key areas of expertise are in " data mining technologies " .Since 1947 the CIA and other intelligence activities have been more and more privatized .
They have always used front companies .
Search for the Northwoods Documents , which were authored in the late 1950 's.Many have argued that E.O 12333 privatized a lot of intelligence work .
Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you want to know one reason why they do this.This is really only news to people who do n't pay attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you don't understand is that part of the CIA has ALWAYS had an investment arm, even before the CIA and OSS existed.
The CIA was born out of the private intelligence networks already well established by Wall Street, hence why so many of the early CIA was filled and run by Ivy League schools and Yale's Skull and Bones crowd.The funny thing is Facebook has long since been implicated as being funded indirectly by In-Q-Tel.
[nzherald.co.nz] The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners.
Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999.
One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".Since 1947 the CIA and other intelligence activities have been more and more privatized.
They have always used front companies.
Search for the Northwoods Documents, which were authored in the late 1950's.Many have argued that E.O 12333 privatized a lot of intelligence work.
Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you want to know one reason why they do this.This is really only news to people who don't pay attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811199</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this considered an YRO issue?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1256064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway. All this seems to do is aggregate it. If you post it in a public forum, you shouldn't care who uses it or how. Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping, who cares? I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.</p><p>Besides, I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low, so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.</p><p>The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it.</p></div><p>I'll explain that with a hypothetical analogy.  There's nothing wrong with a person who can see your house from the public street.  You knew it was a public road before you built a house near it, after all.  However, you might find it a bit unsettling if the same van is always parked on that road and its occupant is always watching your house day and night.  You might find it downright alarming if you noticed that he was videotaping your premises and taking notes about your daily activities.  You might wonder what he plans to do with that information.  You might be unable to come up with any good or desirable uses, but able to see a ton of abuse potential for it.  But by your logic above, that should be okay because you had no expectation of privacy for anything you make visible from a public street, right?
<br> <br>
In meatspace we do tend to draw a line between someone who happens to drive on that road and happens to glance at your premises, and someone who acts like a malicious stalker.  There's a very good reason for that.  The reason is not dictated by the special needs of meatspace; it is not the result of the law of gravity or the law of magnetism.  No, the reason is rooted in sound principle.  Principle is an abstract thing that applies equally to the streets and the Internet.  I realize it's trendy for officials and such to act like we've never faced any of these questions before merely because a computer is involved, but it's not necessary.
<br> <br>
The moment your creative output is collected, tagged, and studied, you become an object of study.  It's a rather demeaning status when it's done for no good reason and occurs against your will, and by people who frankly don't give a damn about you.  I see one major use of this system and it's not a good one.
<br> <br>
In a truly representative government, the government changes over time to meet the changing needs of the people.  The nature of that change depends on the people themselves and in this way it's a natural change, not an engineered one.  Predicting it, for example to capitalize on it, always has some element of chance.  This is a "problem" for people who think they should be holding the reins.
<br> <br>
So they come up with systems like this one.  Now they can quantify things like political influence and find out, with fine precision, where it comes from and who possesses it.  What would have taken a massive propaganda effort in the past can now be done with just a little "push" at just the right place.  Do some of you ever wonder where the restrictions came from that prohibit the CIA from spying on Americans?  Do you imagine they are a product of chance?  This is, after all, a method of circumventing those restrictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway .
All this seems to do is aggregate it .
If you post it in a public forum , you should n't care who uses it or how .
Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping , who cares ?
I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.Besides , I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low , so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it.I 'll explain that with a hypothetical analogy .
There 's nothing wrong with a person who can see your house from the public street .
You knew it was a public road before you built a house near it , after all .
However , you might find it a bit unsettling if the same van is always parked on that road and its occupant is always watching your house day and night .
You might find it downright alarming if you noticed that he was videotaping your premises and taking notes about your daily activities .
You might wonder what he plans to do with that information .
You might be unable to come up with any good or desirable uses , but able to see a ton of abuse potential for it .
But by your logic above , that should be okay because you had no expectation of privacy for anything you make visible from a public street , right ?
In meatspace we do tend to draw a line between someone who happens to drive on that road and happens to glance at your premises , and someone who acts like a malicious stalker .
There 's a very good reason for that .
The reason is not dictated by the special needs of meatspace ; it is not the result of the law of gravity or the law of magnetism .
No , the reason is rooted in sound principle .
Principle is an abstract thing that applies equally to the streets and the Internet .
I realize it 's trendy for officials and such to act like we 've never faced any of these questions before merely because a computer is involved , but it 's not necessary .
The moment your creative output is collected , tagged , and studied , you become an object of study .
It 's a rather demeaning status when it 's done for no good reason and occurs against your will , and by people who frankly do n't give a damn about you .
I see one major use of this system and it 's not a good one .
In a truly representative government , the government changes over time to meet the changing needs of the people .
The nature of that change depends on the people themselves and in this way it 's a natural change , not an engineered one .
Predicting it , for example to capitalize on it , always has some element of chance .
This is a " problem " for people who think they should be holding the reins .
So they come up with systems like this one .
Now they can quantify things like political influence and find out , with fine precision , where it comes from and who possesses it .
What would have taken a massive propaganda effort in the past can now be done with just a little " push " at just the right place .
Do some of you ever wonder where the restrictions came from that prohibit the CIA from spying on Americans ?
Do you imagine they are a product of chance ?
This is , after all , a method of circumventing those restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is data that people freely post to be read by all anyway.
All this seems to do is aggregate it.
If you post it in a public forum, you shouldn't care who uses it or how.
Unless the sites being scraped have policies against said scraping, who cares?
I see it as a very valuable tool for sales departments.Besides, I am sure the signal to noise ratio for this system is incredibly low, so one has to wonder how much usable information is retrieved.The only problem I have with this is that my tax dollars are going to fund it.I'll explain that with a hypothetical analogy.
There's nothing wrong with a person who can see your house from the public street.
You knew it was a public road before you built a house near it, after all.
However, you might find it a bit unsettling if the same van is always parked on that road and its occupant is always watching your house day and night.
You might find it downright alarming if you noticed that he was videotaping your premises and taking notes about your daily activities.
You might wonder what he plans to do with that information.
You might be unable to come up with any good or desirable uses, but able to see a ton of abuse potential for it.
But by your logic above, that should be okay because you had no expectation of privacy for anything you make visible from a public street, right?
In meatspace we do tend to draw a line between someone who happens to drive on that road and happens to glance at your premises, and someone who acts like a malicious stalker.
There's a very good reason for that.
The reason is not dictated by the special needs of meatspace; it is not the result of the law of gravity or the law of magnetism.
No, the reason is rooted in sound principle.
Principle is an abstract thing that applies equally to the streets and the Internet.
I realize it's trendy for officials and such to act like we've never faced any of these questions before merely because a computer is involved, but it's not necessary.
The moment your creative output is collected, tagged, and studied, you become an object of study.
It's a rather demeaning status when it's done for no good reason and occurs against your will, and by people who frankly don't give a damn about you.
I see one major use of this system and it's not a good one.
In a truly representative government, the government changes over time to meet the changing needs of the people.
The nature of that change depends on the people themselves and in this way it's a natural change, not an engineered one.
Predicting it, for example to capitalize on it, always has some element of chance.
This is a "problem" for people who think they should be holding the reins.
So they come up with systems like this one.
Now they can quantify things like political influence and find out, with fine precision, where it comes from and who possesses it.
What would have taken a massive propaganda effort in the past can now be done with just a little "push" at just the right place.
Do some of you ever wonder where the restrictions came from that prohibit the CIA from spying on Americans?
Do you imagine they are a product of chance?
This is, after all, a method of circumventing those restrictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808561</id>
	<title>This makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>kpainter</author>
	<datestamp>1256055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without this new capability, this little gem would have went by completely unnoticed on Facebook:<br>
"Achmed sent Bob a suicide bomb".<br>
When they looked at Achmed's profile, it said on the front page:<br>
"Achmed joined Al Qaida".<br>
Ah-ha!  Gotcha</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without this new capability , this little gem would have went by completely unnoticed on Facebook : " Achmed sent Bob a suicide bomb " .
When they looked at Achmed 's profile , it said on the front page : " Achmed joined Al Qaida " .
Ah-ha ! Gotcha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without this new capability, this little gem would have went by completely unnoticed on Facebook:
"Achmed sent Bob a suicide bomb".
When they looked at Achmed's profile, it said on the front page:
"Achmed joined Al Qaida".
Ah-ha!  Gotcha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809607</id>
	<title>Re:Datamining Social Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to use my blog to rant about unusable products and deceptive practices. Once I got a call from someone working for a large online retailer regarding a post where I labelled one of their practices as a "fraud". Technically it wasn't because the issue was not settled by a court (but another similar company was condemned for a very similar practice). He was very business-like but a bit pushy, so I googled his name. Turns out that he's basically in charge of responding to all the online criticism aimed at his company (a busy job). However, he really seemed to have to power to solve the issues faced by the complainers (misdeliveries, lateness...) so I guess that makes him "one of the good guys." Of course the very existence of such a position shows that the company is not doing a perfect job at handling customer complaints through standard channels (unlike, say, Amazon). Nevertheless, he was very upfront upon the fact that his job was to maintain the online reputation of his firm. If you do not complain online, well, he's not going to help you and you will be stuck with your problem.</p><p>Now, of course, I would totally buy from this retailer again because if I had an problem, I could since call this guy (his number is everywhere) and have it solved quickly.</p><p>I guess that my point is that it's hard to tell whether your technology will help us or enslave us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to use my blog to rant about unusable products and deceptive practices .
Once I got a call from someone working for a large online retailer regarding a post where I labelled one of their practices as a " fraud " .
Technically it was n't because the issue was not settled by a court ( but another similar company was condemned for a very similar practice ) .
He was very business-like but a bit pushy , so I googled his name .
Turns out that he 's basically in charge of responding to all the online criticism aimed at his company ( a busy job ) .
However , he really seemed to have to power to solve the issues faced by the complainers ( misdeliveries , lateness... ) so I guess that makes him " one of the good guys .
" Of course the very existence of such a position shows that the company is not doing a perfect job at handling customer complaints through standard channels ( unlike , say , Amazon ) .
Nevertheless , he was very upfront upon the fact that his job was to maintain the online reputation of his firm .
If you do not complain online , well , he 's not going to help you and you will be stuck with your problem.Now , of course , I would totally buy from this retailer again because if I had an problem , I could since call this guy ( his number is everywhere ) and have it solved quickly.I guess that my point is that it 's hard to tell whether your technology will help us or enslave us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to use my blog to rant about unusable products and deceptive practices.
Once I got a call from someone working for a large online retailer regarding a post where I labelled one of their practices as a "fraud".
Technically it wasn't because the issue was not settled by a court (but another similar company was condemned for a very similar practice).
He was very business-like but a bit pushy, so I googled his name.
Turns out that he's basically in charge of responding to all the online criticism aimed at his company (a busy job).
However, he really seemed to have to power to solve the issues faced by the complainers (misdeliveries, lateness...) so I guess that makes him "one of the good guys.
" Of course the very existence of such a position shows that the company is not doing a perfect job at handling customer complaints through standard channels (unlike, say, Amazon).
Nevertheless, he was very upfront upon the fact that his job was to maintain the online reputation of his firm.
If you do not complain online, well, he's not going to help you and you will be stuck with your problem.Now, of course, I would totally buy from this retailer again because if I had an problem, I could since call this guy (his number is everywhere) and have it solved quickly.I guess that my point is that it's hard to tell whether your technology will help us or enslave us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809643</id>
	<title>Domestic spying?</title>
	<author>codepigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1256058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the CIA wasn't allowed to do domestic intelligence?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the CIA was n't allowed to do domestic intelligence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the CIA wasn't allowed to do domestic intelligence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809465</id>
	<title>Re:Motivation?</title>
	<author>localman57</author>
	<datestamp>1256058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0?</p></div><p>You'd be shocked.  There's still this attitude by lots of people that what happens on the internet stays on the internet.  Our local probation department routinely violates people based on facebook photos of them:<br>

-In places they've been tresspassed from<br>
-Consuming alcohol (if it's a condition of probation)<br>
-Pointing guns at each other<br>
-Being around children (sex offenders)<br>
-Driving (Habitual Traffic Offenders)<br>

<br>
Of course, the photos could be old, or (theoretically) doctored.  However, like any other evidence, they have to be put before a judge, who determines if they are likely to be incriminating.  (Probation violations require a judge's decision in our state, as opposed to parole violations, which do not).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0 ? You 'd be shocked .
There 's still this attitude by lots of people that what happens on the internet stays on the internet .
Our local probation department routinely violates people based on facebook photos of them : -In places they 've been tresspassed from -Consuming alcohol ( if it 's a condition of probation ) -Pointing guns at each other -Being around children ( sex offenders ) -Driving ( Habitual Traffic Offenders ) Of course , the photos could be old , or ( theoretically ) doctored .
However , like any other evidence , they have to be put before a judge , who determines if they are likely to be incriminating .
( Probation violations require a judge 's decision in our state , as opposed to parole violations , which do not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much are they really going to get from Web 2.0?You'd be shocked.
There's still this attitude by lots of people that what happens on the internet stays on the internet.
Our local probation department routinely violates people based on facebook photos of them:

-In places they've been tresspassed from
-Consuming alcohol (if it's a condition of probation)
-Pointing guns at each other
-Being around children (sex offenders)
-Driving (Habitual Traffic Offenders)


Of course, the photos could be old, or (theoretically) doctored.
However, like any other evidence, they have to be put before a judge, who determines if they are likely to be incriminating.
(Probation violations require a judge's decision in our state, as opposed to parole violations, which do not).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808655</id>
	<title>That's kind of the basic step -- get in and monito</title>
	<author>negrace</author>
	<datestamp>1256055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; That's kind of the basic step -- get in and monitor,

1. Get in and monitor,
2. ???
3. Profit!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; That 's kind of the basic step -- get in and monitor , 1 .
Get in and monitor , 2 .
? ? ? 3 .
Profit ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; That's kind of the basic step -- get in and monitor,

1.
Get in and monitor,
2.
???
3.
Profit!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29827729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29813355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29816819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1444256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29816819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29815685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29811361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29813355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29827729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29809643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1444256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29808211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29810101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1444256.29812523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
