<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_25_2138243</id>
	<title>Cyberterror Not Yet a Credible Threat, Says Policy Thinktank</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256463720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"A  new report by a Washington policy think tank <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/cyberterror-not-credible-threat-102309">dismisses out of hand the idea that terrorist groups are currently launching cyber attacks</a> and says that the recent attacks against US and South Korean networks were not damaging enough to be considered serious incidents. The report, written by James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, looks at cyberwar through the prism of the Korean attacks, and calls the idea that terrorists have attack capabilities and just aren't using them 'nonsensical.' 'A very rough estimate would say that there is a lag of three and eight years between the capabilities developed by advanced intelligence agencies and the capabilities available for purchase or rental in the cybercrime black market. The evidence for this is partial and anecdotal, but the trend has been consistent for more two decades,' Lewis writes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " A new report by a Washington policy think tank dismisses out of hand the idea that terrorist groups are currently launching cyber attacks and says that the recent attacks against US and South Korean networks were not damaging enough to be considered serious incidents .
The report , written by James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies , looks at cyberwar through the prism of the Korean attacks , and calls the idea that terrorists have attack capabilities and just are n't using them 'nonsensical .
' 'A very rough estimate would say that there is a lag of three and eight years between the capabilities developed by advanced intelligence agencies and the capabilities available for purchase or rental in the cybercrime black market .
The evidence for this is partial and anecdotal , but the trend has been consistent for more two decades, ' Lewis writes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "A  new report by a Washington policy think tank dismisses out of hand the idea that terrorist groups are currently launching cyber attacks and says that the recent attacks against US and South Korean networks were not damaging enough to be considered serious incidents.
The report, written by James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, looks at cyberwar through the prism of the Korean attacks, and calls the idea that terrorists have attack capabilities and just aren't using them 'nonsensical.
' 'A very rough estimate would say that there is a lag of three and eight years between the capabilities developed by advanced intelligence agencies and the capabilities available for purchase or rental in the cybercrime black market.
The evidence for this is partial and anecdotal, but the trend has been consistent for more two decades,' Lewis writes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868339</id>
	<title>The Saving Grace</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1256481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cyberterror could do some nasty things, such as stealing financial information; but as far as disrupting vital systems, we're pretty safe... because computers and software are so damn unreliable that nobody EXPECTS them to work all the time.  Every business and organization should KNOW, from experience, that their computer system could go belly up at any time, and have backup methods and redundancies ready to go.<br> <br>

I'd wager that lots of cyber-terrorist attacks would just seem like a normal Monday.  If a computer glitch could kill a million people... well, that's probably going to happy terrorist or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cyberterror could do some nasty things , such as stealing financial information ; but as far as disrupting vital systems , we 're pretty safe... because computers and software are so damn unreliable that nobody EXPECTS them to work all the time .
Every business and organization should KNOW , from experience , that their computer system could go belly up at any time , and have backup methods and redundancies ready to go .
I 'd wager that lots of cyber-terrorist attacks would just seem like a normal Monday .
If a computer glitch could kill a million people... well , that 's probably going to happy terrorist or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cyberterror could do some nasty things, such as stealing financial information; but as far as disrupting vital systems, we're pretty safe... because computers and software are so damn unreliable that nobody EXPECTS them to work all the time.
Every business and organization should KNOW, from experience, that their computer system could go belly up at any time, and have backup methods and redundancies ready to go.
I'd wager that lots of cyber-terrorist attacks would just seem like a normal Monday.
If a computer glitch could kill a million people... well, that's probably going to happy terrorist or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868175</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>turkeydance</author>
	<datestamp>1256478420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes....go ahead and cut off my grandchildren's twitter.
show that air traffic controllers are really human.
and...please make my doctor actually talk face-to-face
with my nurse. go ahead. dare ya.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes....go ahead and cut off my grandchildren 's twitter .
show that air traffic controllers are really human .
and...please make my doctor actually talk face-to-face with my nurse .
go ahead .
dare ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes....go ahead and cut off my grandchildren's twitter.
show that air traffic controllers are really human.
and...please make my doctor actually talk face-to-face
with my nurse.
go ahead.
dare ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868025</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256476620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks...</i></p><p>Dick Cheney with a shotgun.. I kid! I kid! I love Dick...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...real tangible threats , like flames , blood and gore , falling rocks...Dick Cheney with a shotgun.. I kid !
I kid !
I love Dick.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks...Dick Cheney with a shotgun.. I kid!
I kid!
I love Dick...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868123</id>
	<title>Re:Cyber Terror and BOTnets</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror' (like the attacks on twitter, facebook and in S. Korea) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers, as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.</p><p>There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.</p><p>If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design, would potentially seriously hurt the Economy. Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity, than to cause mass hysteria.</p></div><p>Let's identify the real culprit.  COMPUTERS!   There is ONE... No TWO REASONS we have BOTNETS.  COMPUTERS! and HIGHSPEED INTERNET!  Clearly these two threats need to be removed and we will be safe from BOTNETS.  Also ELECTRICITY! We should stop producing ELECTRICITY because it facilitates BOTNETS.</p><p>If the mainstream media were to reveal that COMPUTERS and ELECTRICITY were behind BOTNETS we would realize teh only way to stop the BOTNETS was to redesign all the USERS to not be SUSCEPTIBLE to PERSUASION and SOCIAL ENGINEERING. But then we would have an apocalypse on our HANDS.  And then if we told them that their FAMILY MEMBERS were the most likely PEOPLE to STEAL THEIR IDENTITIES families would fall APART under paranoia and suspicion.   Think of all the PEOPLE who would stop leaving their HOMES because they were too AFRAID that their AUNT would steal their IDENTITY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror ' ( like the attacks on twitter , facebook and in S. Korea ) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers , as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design , would potentially seriously hurt the Economy .
Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically ' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity , than to cause mass hysteria.Let 's identify the real culprit .
COMPUTERS ! There is ONE... No TWO REASONS we have BOTNETS .
COMPUTERS ! and HIGHSPEED INTERNET !
Clearly these two threats need to be removed and we will be safe from BOTNETS .
Also ELECTRICITY !
We should stop producing ELECTRICITY because it facilitates BOTNETS.If the mainstream media were to reveal that COMPUTERS and ELECTRICITY were behind BOTNETS we would realize teh only way to stop the BOTNETS was to redesign all the USERS to not be SUSCEPTIBLE to PERSUASION and SOCIAL ENGINEERING .
But then we would have an apocalypse on our HANDS .
And then if we told them that their FAMILY MEMBERS were the most likely PEOPLE to STEAL THEIR IDENTITIES families would fall APART under paranoia and suspicion .
Think of all the PEOPLE who would stop leaving their HOMES because they were too AFRAID that their AUNT would steal their IDENTITY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror' (like the attacks on twitter, facebook and in S. Korea) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers, as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design, would potentially seriously hurt the Economy.
Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity, than to cause mass hysteria.Let's identify the real culprit.
COMPUTERS!   There is ONE... No TWO REASONS we have BOTNETS.
COMPUTERS! and HIGHSPEED INTERNET!
Clearly these two threats need to be removed and we will be safe from BOTNETS.
Also ELECTRICITY!
We should stop producing ELECTRICITY because it facilitates BOTNETS.If the mainstream media were to reveal that COMPUTERS and ELECTRICITY were behind BOTNETS we would realize teh only way to stop the BOTNETS was to redesign all the USERS to not be SUSCEPTIBLE to PERSUASION and SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
But then we would have an apocalypse on our HANDS.
And then if we told them that their FAMILY MEMBERS were the most likely PEOPLE to STEAL THEIR IDENTITIES families would fall APART under paranoia and suspicion.
Think of all the PEOPLE who would stop leaving their HOMES because they were too AFRAID that their AUNT would steal their IDENTITY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867971</id>
	<title>Need to move to mutual security model</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1256476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This three to eight year lag is the spread of cyberweapons is supposed to reassure us?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-( What other weapons have three to eight year lags in being available to everyone?</p><p>We need to move beyond war, in part because it is too terrible to contemplate at this point:<br><a href="http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm" title="educationa...ocracy.org">http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm</a> [educationa...ocracy.org]</p><p>We need to transition to "intrinsically secure" infrastructure:<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>that we protect by means of "mutual security":<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430" title="beyondintractability.org">http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430</a> [beyondintractability.org]</p><p>We need to move beyond current defense ideology in the USA based on competitive profit-maximizing centralized brittle infrastructure that we try to defend by unilateral dominance (at a cost of about a trillion dollars a year in the USA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This three to eight year lag is the spread of cyberweapons is supposed to reassure us ?
: - ( What other weapons have three to eight year lags in being available to everyone ? We need to move beyond war , in part because it is too terrible to contemplate at this point : http : //educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C \ _CC2a \ _TripleRevolution.htm [ educationa...ocracy.org ] We need to transition to " intrinsically secure " infrastructure :   http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle \ _Power [ wikipedia.org ] that we protect by means of " mutual security " :     http : //www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton \ _deutsch/ ? nid = 2430 [ beyondintractability.org ] We need to move beyond current defense ideology in the USA based on competitive profit-maximizing centralized brittle infrastructure that we try to defend by unilateral dominance ( at a cost of about a trillion dollars a year in the USA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This three to eight year lag is the spread of cyberweapons is supposed to reassure us?
:-( What other weapons have three to eight year lags in being available to everyone?We need to move beyond war, in part because it is too terrible to contemplate at this point:http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]We need to transition to "intrinsically secure" infrastructure:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle\_Power [wikipedia.org]that we protect by means of "mutual security":
    http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton\_deutsch/?nid=2430 [beyondintractability.org]We need to move beyond current defense ideology in the USA based on competitive profit-maximizing centralized brittle infrastructure that we try to defend by unilateral dominance (at a cost of about a trillion dollars a year in the USA).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867311</id>
	<title>The net was designed to survive a nuke attack</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1256467620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets hope it never gets tested!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets hope it never gets tested !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets hope it never gets tested!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868963</id>
	<title>Re:That's Why We Must Be Proactive now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The best defense is a good offense.</i> </p><p>And we have Iraq as a shining example of how well this approach works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best defense is a good offense .
And we have Iraq as a shining example of how well this approach works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best defense is a good offense.
And we have Iraq as a shining example of how well this approach works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867373</id>
	<title>Thank god.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was having a hard time sleeping, waking up with cold sweats, worried sick.<br> <br>

Looks like i can finally get some rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was having a hard time sleeping , waking up with cold sweats , worried sick .
Looks like i can finally get some rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was having a hard time sleeping, waking up with cold sweats, worried sick.
Looks like i can finally get some rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867577</id>
	<title>Depends on the definition.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256471220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, all that fearmongering of "terrorists" (that don't exist) is creating terror itself. So all the censorship and surveillance on the net would be the actual "cyberterror". If there were a point in adding "cyber-" in front of everything. It's just plain terrorizing the people. For the usual reasons: To gain control over them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , all that fearmongering of " terrorists " ( that do n't exist ) is creating terror itself .
So all the censorship and surveillance on the net would be the actual " cyberterror " .
If there were a point in adding " cyber- " in front of everything .
It 's just plain terrorizing the people .
For the usual reasons : To gain control over them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, all that fearmongering of "terrorists" (that don't exist) is creating terror itself.
So all the censorship and surveillance on the net would be the actual "cyberterror".
If there were a point in adding "cyber-" in front of everything.
It's just plain terrorizing the people.
For the usual reasons: To gain control over them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871241</id>
	<title>Maybe, maybe not...</title>
	<author>prometx42</author>
	<datestamp>1256565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that cybersecurity is only as good as who is administering it. If we take the object lesson of British Hacker Gary McKinnon, who is actually now in the process of being extradited to the U.S. to face prosecution for hacking various Pentagon and other miltary computers, he claims that various "highly sensitive" systems (running Windows operatin systems at the time) where on the network with the then default password "Admin". </p><p>In fact Mr. McKinnon doesn't really consider himself to be a very accomplished hacker at all, but that the systems he infiltrated were simply easy to break into. Not only was he able to easily gain access, but while on these networks logged IPs from numerous other individuals from various other countries who were after the same "free candy". Having the capability to be totally secure and doing the proper "housekeeping" necessary to be and remain secure are often two different things.</p><p>It seems as though U.S. Cybersecurity may be mistaking the obvious fear of punishment for breaching sensitive systems, for a lack of ingenuity and skill on the part of potential troublemakers on its networks, which is a pretty big mistake. That is how it seems at least</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that cybersecurity is only as good as who is administering it .
If we take the object lesson of British Hacker Gary McKinnon , who is actually now in the process of being extradited to the U.S. to face prosecution for hacking various Pentagon and other miltary computers , he claims that various " highly sensitive " systems ( running Windows operatin systems at the time ) where on the network with the then default password " Admin " .
In fact Mr. McKinnon does n't really consider himself to be a very accomplished hacker at all , but that the systems he infiltrated were simply easy to break into .
Not only was he able to easily gain access , but while on these networks logged IPs from numerous other individuals from various other countries who were after the same " free candy " .
Having the capability to be totally secure and doing the proper " housekeeping " necessary to be and remain secure are often two different things.It seems as though U.S. Cybersecurity may be mistaking the obvious fear of punishment for breaching sensitive systems , for a lack of ingenuity and skill on the part of potential troublemakers on its networks , which is a pretty big mistake .
That is how it seems at least</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that cybersecurity is only as good as who is administering it.
If we take the object lesson of British Hacker Gary McKinnon, who is actually now in the process of being extradited to the U.S. to face prosecution for hacking various Pentagon and other miltary computers, he claims that various "highly sensitive" systems (running Windows operatin systems at the time) where on the network with the then default password "Admin".
In fact Mr. McKinnon doesn't really consider himself to be a very accomplished hacker at all, but that the systems he infiltrated were simply easy to break into.
Not only was he able to easily gain access, but while on these networks logged IPs from numerous other individuals from various other countries who were after the same "free candy".
Having the capability to be totally secure and doing the proper "housekeeping" necessary to be and remain secure are often two different things.It seems as though U.S. Cybersecurity may be mistaking the obvious fear of punishment for breaching sensitive systems, for a lack of ingenuity and skill on the part of potential troublemakers on its networks, which is a pretty big mistake.
That is how it seems at least</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871917</id>
	<title>Reframe Question and It's a Little Clearer</title>
	<author>obscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1256569440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking for a cyber-terrorist THREAT is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. Looking for VULNERABILITIES to a cyber-terrorist attack is like wading through mud in a swamp. You can't write tomes of complaints about security vulnerabilities in OSes, lame users getting cracked, and slack admin practices and then chimes in about how cyber-terrorism is no big deal?! We're sitting ducks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking for a cyber-terrorist THREAT is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack .
Looking for VULNERABILITIES to a cyber-terrorist attack is like wading through mud in a swamp .
You ca n't write tomes of complaints about security vulnerabilities in OSes , lame users getting cracked , and slack admin practices and then chimes in about how cyber-terrorism is no big deal ? !
We 're sitting ducks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking for a cyber-terrorist THREAT is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Looking for VULNERABILITIES to a cyber-terrorist attack is like wading through mud in a swamp.
You can't write tomes of complaints about security vulnerabilities in OSes, lame users getting cracked, and slack admin practices and then chimes in about how cyber-terrorism is no big deal?!
We're sitting ducks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867363</id>
	<title>"not yet credible"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't seen the amount of probing foreign governments do to our defense networks. I'm amazed DoD networks function at all. The bulk of the attacks are, of course, script kiddies worldwide. However many national governments are putting very brilliant work into attacking our networks. Right now the focus is on extracting data, but given the compromised silicon I've seen, anything is possible.</p><p>anon for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen the amount of probing foreign governments do to our defense networks .
I 'm amazed DoD networks function at all .
The bulk of the attacks are , of course , script kiddies worldwide .
However many national governments are putting very brilliant work into attacking our networks .
Right now the focus is on extracting data , but given the compromised silicon I 've seen , anything is possible.anon for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen the amount of probing foreign governments do to our defense networks.
I'm amazed DoD networks function at all.
The bulk of the attacks are, of course, script kiddies worldwide.
However many national governments are putting very brilliant work into attacking our networks.
Right now the focus is on extracting data, but given the compromised silicon I've seen, anything is possible.anon for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873747</id>
	<title>Re:That's Why We Must Be Proactive now</title>
	<author>Haven'tAClue</author>
	<datestamp>1256578440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A good friend is a sysop on a local government site. He is bewildered by an entire network sending very small packets to China.com, a communication ISP. The traffic is continuous, is difficult to distinguish, uses port 80 and the packets originate from his 130+ machines which run a variety of OS's; some without much of an OS. When I look at the sophistication of this process, combined with the massive load it places on the receiving server(s), I come up with a government entity with an agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good friend is a sysop on a local government site .
He is bewildered by an entire network sending very small packets to China.com , a communication ISP .
The traffic is continuous , is difficult to distinguish , uses port 80 and the packets originate from his 130 + machines which run a variety of OS 's ; some without much of an OS .
When I look at the sophistication of this process , combined with the massive load it places on the receiving server ( s ) , I come up with a government entity with an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good friend is a sysop on a local government site.
He is bewildered by an entire network sending very small packets to China.com, a communication ISP.
The traffic is continuous, is difficult to distinguish, uses port 80 and the packets originate from his 130+ machines which run a variety of OS's; some without much of an OS.
When I look at the sophistication of this process, combined with the massive load it places on the receiving server(s), I come up with a government entity with an agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507</id>
	<title>Not yet - shouldn't we still care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256470140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet .
Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet.
Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867795</id>
	<title>Re:Not yet - shouldn't we still care?</title>
	<author>awc</author>
	<datestamp>1256473800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just use linux, then we'll be good to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just use linux , then we 'll be good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just use linux, then we'll be good to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868561</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256483940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America. It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives. But it wasn't terrifying. It was just annoying.</i> </p><p>That's an interesting example you bring up.</p><p>It happened due to a design or operational flaw, according to later reports. But what if it had been intentional, cyber-based or just some guy hitting the right switches.</p><p>Assuming humpty dumpty got put together again, with no further "incidents", what would have been the difference?</p><p>Same effect, different cause.</p><p>Well, in one case, we call it terrorism and script the next level of security theater. In the other case, we investigate and shaft the low-level people and put the high-rollers on TV to say "measures have been taken to avoid this in future.".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years back , we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America .
It was very inconvenient , and it cost a huge amount of money , and it even resulted in the loss of some lives .
But it was n't terrifying .
It was just annoying .
That 's an interesting example you bring up.It happened due to a design or operational flaw , according to later reports .
But what if it had been intentional , cyber-based or just some guy hitting the right switches.Assuming humpty dumpty got put together again , with no further " incidents " , what would have been the difference ? Same effect , different cause.Well , in one case , we call it terrorism and script the next level of security theater .
In the other case , we investigate and shaft the low-level people and put the high-rollers on TV to say " measures have been taken to avoid this in future .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America.
It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives.
But it wasn't terrifying.
It was just annoying.
That's an interesting example you bring up.It happened due to a design or operational flaw, according to later reports.
But what if it had been intentional, cyber-based or just some guy hitting the right switches.Assuming humpty dumpty got put together again, with no further "incidents", what would have been the difference?Same effect, different cause.Well, in one case, we call it terrorism and script the next level of security theater.
In the other case, we investigate and shaft the low-level people and put the high-rollers on TV to say "measures have been taken to avoid this in future.
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869737</id>
	<title>oversight</title>
	<author>daedlanth</author>
	<datestamp>1256587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>5 years ago I and some friends of mine were "playing" and we seen the F.B.i.. I'm not trying to be nonsensical but this is LOL in teen-age terms. Really, feds, you NEED juice.

daed</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 years ago I and some friends of mine were " playing " and we seen the F.B.i.. I 'm not trying to be nonsensical but this is LOL in teen-age terms .
Really , feds , you NEED juice .
daed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 years ago I and some friends of mine were "playing" and we seen the F.B.i.. I'm not trying to be nonsensical but this is LOL in teen-age terms.
Really, feds, you NEED juice.
daed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</id>
	<title>Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256473500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Terrorism" requires terror, not inconvenience or annoyance.<br><br>A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America.  It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives.  But it wasn't terrifying.  It was just annoying.<br><br>It's not about the amount of damage, it's about the effect.  A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths, but there's nothing to focus on.  A car exploding next to a bistro may only kill two or three people, but it is far more effective terrorism.<br><br>For terrorism to be effective, it has to produce terror.  That's an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one.  And to get that emotional reaction, there has to be real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Terrorism " requires terror , not inconvenience or annoyance.A few years back , we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America .
It was very inconvenient , and it cost a huge amount of money , and it even resulted in the loss of some lives .
But it was n't terrifying .
It was just annoying.It 's not about the amount of damage , it 's about the effect .
A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths , but there 's nothing to focus on .
A car exploding next to a bistro may only kill two or three people , but it is far more effective terrorism.For terrorism to be effective , it has to produce terror .
That 's an emotional reaction , not an intellectual one .
And to get that emotional reaction , there has to be real tangible threats , like flames , blood and gore , falling rocks , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Terrorism" requires terror, not inconvenience or annoyance.A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America.
It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives.
But it wasn't terrifying.
It was just annoying.It's not about the amount of damage, it's about the effect.
A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths, but there's nothing to focus on.
A car exploding next to a bistro may only kill two or three people, but it is far more effective terrorism.For terrorism to be effective, it has to produce terror.
That's an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one.
And to get that emotional reaction, there has to be real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871629</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1256567880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks,</p></div><p>WOW addicts stumbling down streets, moaning incoherently...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tangible threats , like flames , blood and gore , falling rocks,WOW addicts stumbling down streets , moaning incoherently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks,WOW addicts stumbling down streets, moaning incoherently...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867529</id>
	<title>terror?</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1256470380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my spambox is fullfilled with cyber terror</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my spambox is fullfilled with cyber terror</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my spambox is fullfilled with cyber terror</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868377</id>
	<title>Re:Not yet - shouldn't we still care?</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1256481780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security?</p></div><p>No but societies have scarce resources with alternative uses and realizing how big a risk this presents versus how big a risk other potential problems present helps us assign priorities. If you are worried about someone breaking in to your house, priority number one should be to get in the habit of locking your doors when not using them. Looking at things like motion lights are good, but locking doors is the best problem to solve first. It is all about relative risk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet .
Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security ? No but societies have scarce resources with alternative uses and realizing how big a risk this presents versus how big a risk other potential problems present helps us assign priorities .
If you are worried about someone breaking in to your house , priority number one should be to get in the habit of locking your doors when not using them .
Looking at things like motion lights are good , but locking doors is the best problem to solve first .
It is all about relative risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I agree that we might not see cyberterror attacks for years yet.
Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to our infrastructure and ignore the issue of proper security?No but societies have scarce resources with alternative uses and realizing how big a risk this presents versus how big a risk other potential problems present helps us assign priorities.
If you are worried about someone breaking in to your house, priority number one should be to get in the habit of locking your doors when not using them.
Looking at things like motion lights are good, but locking doors is the best problem to solve first.
It is all about relative risk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867623</id>
	<title>4chan? ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256471760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>writer must not have met anon yet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>writer must not have met anon yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>writer must not have met anon yet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868681</id>
	<title>Cyber "terror"?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1256485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Not yet?"  Maybe "not ever."  Cyber-sabotage?  Sure.  But people are pretty jaded about computers.  Windows still has huge marketshare.    Bring all of society crashing down and I'm still not sure it'll be "terror."  People will be pissed, but will they feel the safe has become unsafe?  Either they <em>already</em> think that, or they never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not yet ?
" Maybe " not ever .
" Cyber-sabotage ?
Sure. But people are pretty jaded about computers .
Windows still has huge marketshare .
Bring all of society crashing down and I 'm still not sure it 'll be " terror .
" People will be pissed , but will they feel the safe has become unsafe ?
Either they already think that , or they never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not yet?
"  Maybe "not ever.
"  Cyber-sabotage?
Sure.  But people are pretty jaded about computers.
Windows still has huge marketshare.
Bring all of society crashing down and I'm still not sure it'll be "terror.
"  People will be pissed, but will they feel the safe has become unsafe?
Either they already think that, or they never will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867309</id>
	<title>We need more first posts!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256467500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lest the cyber terrorists win!</htmltext>
<tokenext>lest the cyber terrorists win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lest the cyber terrorists win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871257</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1256565360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The police would be overwhelmed as there's most definitely a disparity of people to police officers.  Training not withstanding, if you're outnumbered 1000:1 (and they would be...) there's a threshold that if the crowd in question goes over, the cops will be injured or killed as the crowd takes them at some point.</p><p>You put too much faith in law enforcement.  It only works well when the bulk of the populace are law abiding.  When the population largely is not law abiding and obviously outnumbers the enforcement for the law- then stronger measures are needed; but don't work much better.  Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The police would be overwhelmed as there 's most definitely a disparity of people to police officers .
Training not withstanding , if you 're outnumbered 1000 : 1 ( and they would be... ) there 's a threshold that if the crowd in question goes over , the cops will be injured or killed as the crowd takes them at some point.You put too much faith in law enforcement .
It only works well when the bulk of the populace are law abiding .
When the population largely is not law abiding and obviously outnumbers the enforcement for the law- then stronger measures are needed ; but do n't work much better .
Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The police would be overwhelmed as there's most definitely a disparity of people to police officers.
Training not withstanding, if you're outnumbered 1000:1 (and they would be...) there's a threshold that if the crowd in question goes over, the cops will be injured or killed as the crowd takes them at some point.You put too much faith in law enforcement.
It only works well when the bulk of the populace are law abiding.
When the population largely is not law abiding and obviously outnumbers the enforcement for the law- then stronger measures are needed; but don't work much better.
Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873951</id>
	<title>Hear, hear</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths, but there's nothing to focus on.</p></div></blockquote><p>What's more, it probably wouldn't even become APPARENT that the event was caused by a "terrorist" until long after the fact. That really limits the utility of this kind of thing from the "terrorist's" standpoint - it's hard to terrorize people when they don't even realize you've done something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths , but there 's nothing to focus on.What 's more , it probably would n't even become APPARENT that the event was caused by a " terrorist " until long after the fact .
That really limits the utility of this kind of thing from the " terrorist 's " standpoint - it 's hard to terrorize people when they do n't even realize you 've done something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cyberterror event like a power or communications failure could result in hundreds of deaths, but there's nothing to focus on.What's more, it probably wouldn't even become APPARENT that the event was caused by a "terrorist" until long after the fact.
That really limits the utility of this kind of thing from the "terrorist's" standpoint - it's hard to terrorize people when they don't even realize you've done something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29872863</id>
	<title>Re:The net was designed to survive a nuke attack</title>
	<author>LoadWB</author>
	<datestamp>1256574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may have been designed that way, but in practice the bean-counters have said "why are we paying for all this redundancy?!" and we cannot even handle a simple hurricane-caused fiber sever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may have been designed that way , but in practice the bean-counters have said " why are we paying for all this redundancy ? !
" and we can not even handle a simple hurricane-caused fiber sever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may have been designed that way, but in practice the bean-counters have said "why are we paying for all this redundancy?!
" and we cannot even handle a simple hurricane-caused fiber sever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869935</id>
	<title>WZZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WZZ</p><p>Today <a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionkina.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">aion kina</a> [aionkina.com] breaking news<br><a href="http://www.game4power.com/" title="game4power.com" rel="nofollow">Buy wow gold</a> [game4power.com] the<br><a href="http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/" title="game4power.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold cheap</a> [game4power.com] Iranian<br><a href="http://www.aionshopping.com/" title="aionshopping.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionshopping.com] suicide<br><a href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" title="vipwarhammergold.com" rel="nofollow">warhammer gold</a> [vipwarhammergold.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">buy aion gold</a> [aionkina.com] bombings<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">cheap aion gold</a> [aionkina.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WZZToday aion gold [ aionkina.com ] aion kina [ aionkina.com ] breaking newsBuy wow gold [ game4power.com ] thewow gold cheap [ game4power.com ] Iranianaion gold [ aionshopping.com ] suicidewarhammer gold [ vipwarhammergold.com ] buy aion gold [ aionkina.com ] bombingscheap aion gold [ aionkina.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WZZToday aion gold [aionkina.com]aion kina [aionkina.com] breaking newsBuy wow gold [game4power.com] thewow gold cheap [game4power.com] Iranianaion gold [aionshopping.com] suicidewarhammer gold [vipwarhammergold.com]buy aion gold [aionkina.com] bombingscheap aion gold [aionkina.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869249</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>jamromhem</author>
	<datestamp>1256495340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am going to have to disagree with you completely. A couple years back a government system was compromised. This system contained a large sum of information on military service members. This information included addresses station assignments deployment information birth dates social security numbers. If you think this to be a simple "inconvenience" please post all of your similar information here for us to use as we see fit.

Let's break this down a little so you understand why this causes terror.
1. A couple years ago groups were targetting family members of deployed soldiers to cause distraction and harm. A distraught soldier (term to include airmen sailors and marines for sake of not typing all repeatedly throughout this) is not at his peak in combat and is more likely to make "mistakes".
2. Most of the above mentioned information is all that is needed to falsify an identity and present yourself as one of these people

Now, I have personally seen the effects of cyber attacks and it terrorizing people. The reaction of many service members durring this time was obviously not "discomfort" or "inconvenience". I would think theass reaction accross the armed forces to resemble a controlled terror. Controlled only through training and discipline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to have to disagree with you completely .
A couple years back a government system was compromised .
This system contained a large sum of information on military service members .
This information included addresses station assignments deployment information birth dates social security numbers .
If you think this to be a simple " inconvenience " please post all of your similar information here for us to use as we see fit .
Let 's break this down a little so you understand why this causes terror .
1. A couple years ago groups were targetting family members of deployed soldiers to cause distraction and harm .
A distraught soldier ( term to include airmen sailors and marines for sake of not typing all repeatedly throughout this ) is not at his peak in combat and is more likely to make " mistakes " .
2. Most of the above mentioned information is all that is needed to falsify an identity and present yourself as one of these people Now , I have personally seen the effects of cyber attacks and it terrorizing people .
The reaction of many service members durring this time was obviously not " discomfort " or " inconvenience " .
I would think theass reaction accross the armed forces to resemble a controlled terror .
Controlled only through training and discipline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to have to disagree with you completely.
A couple years back a government system was compromised.
This system contained a large sum of information on military service members.
This information included addresses station assignments deployment information birth dates social security numbers.
If you think this to be a simple "inconvenience" please post all of your similar information here for us to use as we see fit.
Let's break this down a little so you understand why this causes terror.
1. A couple years ago groups were targetting family members of deployed soldiers to cause distraction and harm.
A distraught soldier (term to include airmen sailors and marines for sake of not typing all repeatedly throughout this) is not at his peak in combat and is more likely to make "mistakes".
2. Most of the above mentioned information is all that is needed to falsify an identity and present yourself as one of these people

Now, I have personally seen the effects of cyber attacks and it terrorizing people.
The reaction of many service members durring this time was obviously not "discomfort" or "inconvenience".
I would think theass reaction accross the armed forces to resemble a controlled terror.
Controlled only through training and discipline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868893</id>
	<title>Just let me point out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256489040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Okay, granted, I didn't read the article.
</p><p>
But, it seems to me, terrorism in America wasn't <i>really</i> taken seriously until 2 planes flew into the World Trade center. Up, until then, attacks on the Cole, WTC bombing 1, and even the Oklahoma city bombing were pretty much discounted as insignificant and manageable threats.
</p><p>
Now we have overkill/misdirected resources to combat bottled water.
</p><p>
Didn't I read, not too long ago in Slashdot, about some scientisty types that claimed a properly coordinated attack on key infrastructure powergrid systems could darken the west coast?
</p><p>
I'm just sayin', it'd be pretty foolish to discount a cyberattack just because uncle sam sez so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , granted , I did n't read the article .
But , it seems to me , terrorism in America was n't really taken seriously until 2 planes flew into the World Trade center .
Up , until then , attacks on the Cole , WTC bombing 1 , and even the Oklahoma city bombing were pretty much discounted as insignificant and manageable threats .
Now we have overkill/misdirected resources to combat bottled water .
Did n't I read , not too long ago in Slashdot , about some scientisty types that claimed a properly coordinated attack on key infrastructure powergrid systems could darken the west coast ?
I 'm just sayin ' , it 'd be pretty foolish to discount a cyberattack just because uncle sam sez so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Okay, granted, I didn't read the article.
But, it seems to me, terrorism in America wasn't really taken seriously until 2 planes flew into the World Trade center.
Up, until then, attacks on the Cole, WTC bombing 1, and even the Oklahoma city bombing were pretty much discounted as insignificant and manageable threats.
Now we have overkill/misdirected resources to combat bottled water.
Didn't I read, not too long ago in Slashdot, about some scientisty types that claimed a properly coordinated attack on key infrastructure powergrid systems could darken the west coast?
I'm just sayin', it'd be pretty foolish to discount a cyberattack just because uncle sam sez so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29874249</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1256580900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about the effect, it's about the intent.  The effect and reaction are up to *us*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about the effect , it 's about the intent .
The effect and reaction are up to * us * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about the effect, it's about the intent.
The effect and reaction are up to *us*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868781</id>
	<title>Cyberterrorism...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256487000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that what 4chan is for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what 4chan is for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what 4chan is for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873575</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1256577600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be "terror", but if they could cripple our economy for a few days, then that would be an effective tool for them. Executives and politicians would not be yelling "run for your lives, our website is down!", but they would be worried, and they would be willing to change the way they did business if it were the only way to prevent this from happening again. In this respect cyberterror could be the most effective means of terror there is, as it would directly hurt the wallets of the people who have the most power in this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be " terror " , but if they could cripple our economy for a few days , then that would be an effective tool for them .
Executives and politicians would not be yelling " run for your lives , our website is down !
" , but they would be worried , and they would be willing to change the way they did business if it were the only way to prevent this from happening again .
In this respect cyberterror could be the most effective means of terror there is , as it would directly hurt the wallets of the people who have the most power in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be "terror", but if they could cripple our economy for a few days, then that would be an effective tool for them.
Executives and politicians would not be yelling "run for your lives, our website is down!
", but they would be worried, and they would be willing to change the way they did business if it were the only way to prevent this from happening again.
In this respect cyberterror could be the most effective means of terror there is, as it would directly hurt the wallets of the people who have the most power in this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867381</id>
	<title>Of course they would say that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hy-Brasil is not sinking...nope, not happening. No need to panic, we are NOT sinking...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hy-Brasil is not sinking...nope , not happening .
No need to panic , we are NOT sinking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hy-Brasil is not sinking...nope, not happening.
No need to panic, we are NOT sinking...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871701</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>ChillyWillie</author>
	<datestamp>1256568300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call it terror, modern warfare, or Sponge Bog Squarepants if you wish, but annoyances such as a widespread power outage that occur frequently enough will eventually disrupt a country's economics and productivity on a large scale.  Take, for another example, the threat of a mined harbor.  That $100 device floating somewhere in the shipping lane (if it's even there) is designed to restrict access.  Why is the US military spending many billions of dollars each year on mine countermeasures?  In part, it's because your cheap explosive device is stalling millions of dollars per day on commercial traffic.  A simple mine can be deployed by any country or organization.  Likewise, destroying power infrastructure, oil supply lines, or communication lines can be done by anyone with the initiative.  Still think a power outage is a minor inconvenience?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call it terror , modern warfare , or Sponge Bog Squarepants if you wish , but annoyances such as a widespread power outage that occur frequently enough will eventually disrupt a country 's economics and productivity on a large scale .
Take , for another example , the threat of a mined harbor .
That $ 100 device floating somewhere in the shipping lane ( if it 's even there ) is designed to restrict access .
Why is the US military spending many billions of dollars each year on mine countermeasures ?
In part , it 's because your cheap explosive device is stalling millions of dollars per day on commercial traffic .
A simple mine can be deployed by any country or organization .
Likewise , destroying power infrastructure , oil supply lines , or communication lines can be done by anyone with the initiative .
Still think a power outage is a minor inconvenience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call it terror, modern warfare, or Sponge Bog Squarepants if you wish, but annoyances such as a widespread power outage that occur frequently enough will eventually disrupt a country's economics and productivity on a large scale.
Take, for another example, the threat of a mined harbor.
That $100 device floating somewhere in the shipping lane (if it's even there) is designed to restrict access.
Why is the US military spending many billions of dollars each year on mine countermeasures?
In part, it's because your cheap explosive device is stalling millions of dollars per day on commercial traffic.
A simple mine can be deployed by any country or organization.
Likewise, destroying power infrastructure, oil supply lines, or communication lines can be done by anyone with the initiative.
Still think a power outage is a minor inconvenience?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867829</id>
	<title>The best cyber security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a company detects an intrusion, instead of trying to prevent it, divert it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Send them to an area full of porn. That will disrupt their concentration and make the careless and easy to detect.</p><p>Remember, most of the cyber-terrorist are sexually frustrated people who are technology smart, but not common sense smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a company detects an intrusion , instead of trying to prevent it , divert it ....Send them to an area full of porn .
That will disrupt their concentration and make the careless and easy to detect.Remember , most of the cyber-terrorist are sexually frustrated people who are technology smart , but not common sense smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a company detects an intrusion, instead of trying to prevent it, divert it ....Send them to an area full of porn.
That will disrupt their concentration and make the careless and easy to detect.Remember, most of the cyber-terrorist are sexually frustrated people who are technology smart, but not common sense smart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867349</id>
	<title>bring back the pr0n!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>cyberterror? someone posted something about '<a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/24/2347248" title="slashdot.org">What If They Turned Off the Internet?</a> [slashdot.org]'. now <b>that's</b> a threat!<br>let me share somethin' special with you, which i call <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rm5gRN9KDc" title="youtube.com">perry's perspective.</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>cyberterror ?
someone posted something about 'What If They Turned Off the Internet ?
[ slashdot.org ] '. now that 's a threat ! let me share somethin ' special with you , which i call perry 's perspective .
[ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cyberterror?
someone posted something about 'What If They Turned Off the Internet?
[slashdot.org]'. now that's a threat!let me share somethin' special with you, which i call perry's perspective.
[youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868879</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256488560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And to get that emotional reaction, there has to be real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks, etc.</p></div><p>None of these terrify me more than losing the 'net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And to get that emotional reaction , there has to be real tangible threats , like flames , blood and gore , falling rocks , etc.None of these terrify me more than losing the 'net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to get that emotional reaction, there has to be real tangible threats, like flames, blood and gore, falling rocks, etc.None of these terrify me more than losing the 'net.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867665</id>
	<title>Cyber Terror and BOTnets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256472300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror' (like the attacks on twitter, facebook and in S. Korea) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers, as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.</p><p>There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.</p><p>If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design, would potentially seriously hurt the Economy. Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity, than to cause mass hysteria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror ' ( like the attacks on twitter , facebook and in S. Korea ) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers , as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design , would potentially seriously hurt the Economy .
Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically ' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity , than to cause mass hysteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main stream news STILL does not want to admit that cyber 'terror' (like the attacks on twitter, facebook and in S. Korea) were conducted via WINDOWS zombie computers, as part of a segment of the greater BOTNET.There is only ONE reason why they may not want to admit Microsoft Windows allows BOTNETS and that is MONEY.If the mainstream media where to announce that all of Microsoft Windows computers have a major security flaw that can only be fix properly by rewritting the Kernel and File system permission design, would potentially seriously hurt the Economy.
Think about all the people that would stop shopping Online... it is actually better 'economically' to just let cyber criminals phish away and get all our credit card numbers and steal some poor souls identity, than to cause mass hysteria.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377</id>
	<title>That's Why We Must Be Proactive now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256468340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that even if this report was accurate, we shouldn't be resting on our laurels until the threats become credible and too late to stop.</p><p>Its clear the best way to stop and prevent terrorism is at the point of planning or in the initial stages, not when the have assembled and planted the bomb.  Cyberterrorism should be no different.</p><p>We wouldn't want the smoking gun to be a complete breach and shutdown of our networks would we.  I favor a more proactive and preemptive approach.  Attack them now before they can attack us.  The best defense is a good offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that even if this report was accurate , we should n't be resting on our laurels until the threats become credible and too late to stop.Its clear the best way to stop and prevent terrorism is at the point of planning or in the initial stages , not when the have assembled and planted the bomb .
Cyberterrorism should be no different.We would n't want the smoking gun to be a complete breach and shutdown of our networks would we .
I favor a more proactive and preemptive approach .
Attack them now before they can attack us .
The best defense is a good offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that even if this report was accurate, we shouldn't be resting on our laurels until the threats become credible and too late to stop.Its clear the best way to stop and prevent terrorism is at the point of planning or in the initial stages, not when the have assembled and planted the bomb.
Cyberterrorism should be no different.We wouldn't want the smoking gun to be a complete breach and shutdown of our networks would we.
I favor a more proactive and preemptive approach.
Attack them now before they can attack us.
The best defense is a good offense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867445</id>
	<title>Sticking head in sand 101</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256469120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a good attitude to take.  As any decent sysadmin knows, there is a lot a blackhat who manages to obtain root or Administrator can do to damage a company:</p><p>There are the easy things an attacker can do.  Trash files, copy off data to sell in the black market or competitors, use the boxes as a grounds for an attack, or for P2P servers for unsavory things.</p><p>Then, there are the more subtle things that can be done.  Editing of E-mail, impersonation of people's identities in order to screw up sales, or cause lawsuits, even things that can get a company and its officers in deep trouble with the SEC.  If a blackhat is good, there wouldn't be any evidence left behind of the intrusion, so people could face prison terms and juries are not going to believe "that email was forged" when it came from the right Exchange server and so on.</p><p>A good hacker can cause untold amounts of subtle damage, all it takes is taking time, learning how a target company might function, and what clients.  Then, if there is a large bid being taken, perhaps edit the Word document and change the bid to be so low that it realistically cannot be done, or just high enough that the bidder doesn't take it.</p><p>Anyone who things "cyberterror" is not a credible threat is naiive, or completely clueless.  Yes, terrorists use the Internet, and know how to get around being traced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a good attitude to take .
As any decent sysadmin knows , there is a lot a blackhat who manages to obtain root or Administrator can do to damage a company : There are the easy things an attacker can do .
Trash files , copy off data to sell in the black market or competitors , use the boxes as a grounds for an attack , or for P2P servers for unsavory things.Then , there are the more subtle things that can be done .
Editing of E-mail , impersonation of people 's identities in order to screw up sales , or cause lawsuits , even things that can get a company and its officers in deep trouble with the SEC .
If a blackhat is good , there would n't be any evidence left behind of the intrusion , so people could face prison terms and juries are not going to believe " that email was forged " when it came from the right Exchange server and so on.A good hacker can cause untold amounts of subtle damage , all it takes is taking time , learning how a target company might function , and what clients .
Then , if there is a large bid being taken , perhaps edit the Word document and change the bid to be so low that it realistically can not be done , or just high enough that the bidder does n't take it.Anyone who things " cyberterror " is not a credible threat is naiive , or completely clueless .
Yes , terrorists use the Internet , and know how to get around being traced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a good attitude to take.
As any decent sysadmin knows, there is a lot a blackhat who manages to obtain root or Administrator can do to damage a company:There are the easy things an attacker can do.
Trash files, copy off data to sell in the black market or competitors, use the boxes as a grounds for an attack, or for P2P servers for unsavory things.Then, there are the more subtle things that can be done.
Editing of E-mail, impersonation of people's identities in order to screw up sales, or cause lawsuits, even things that can get a company and its officers in deep trouble with the SEC.
If a blackhat is good, there wouldn't be any evidence left behind of the intrusion, so people could face prison terms and juries are not going to believe "that email was forged" when it came from the right Exchange server and so on.A good hacker can cause untold amounts of subtle damage, all it takes is taking time, learning how a target company might function, and what clients.
Then, if there is a large bid being taken, perhaps edit the Word document and change the bid to be so low that it realistically cannot be done, or just high enough that the bidder doesn't take it.Anyone who things "cyberterror" is not a credible threat is naiive, or completely clueless.
Yes, terrorists use the Internet, and know how to get around being traced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29870449</id>
	<title>Risk Management?</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1256554260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the whole issue here risk management? If a cyber threat exists, what is the response we can/ will take?</p><p>The ITU took the possibility of cyber-threats seriously enough to to form IMPACT - The International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the whole issue here risk management ?
If a cyber threat exists , what is the response we can/ will take ? The ITU took the possibility of cyber-threats seriously enough to to form IMPACT - The International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the whole issue here risk management?
If a cyber threat exists, what is the response we can/ will take?The ITU took the possibility of cyber-threats seriously enough to to form IMPACT - The International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868223</id>
	<title>They'll change their mind soon</title>
	<author>bursch-X</author>
	<datestamp>1256479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once the terrorists have taken down all their pr0n sites, we'll probably get red alert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the terrorists have taken down all their pr0n sites , we 'll probably get red alert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the terrorists have taken down all their pr0n sites, we'll probably get red alert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868013</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1256476500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If New York lost power for more than a week (especially in the middle of winter or summer), there would be real terror. By day four, you'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting. Plus all the deaths from exposure. Maybe the thought of it won't induce terror in us now. But if it did happen, the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response. Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If New York lost power for more than a week ( especially in the middle of winter or summer ) , there would be real terror .
By day four , you 'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting .
Plus all the deaths from exposure .
Maybe the thought of it wo n't induce terror in us now .
But if it did happen , the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If New York lost power for more than a week (especially in the middle of winter or summer), there would be real terror.
By day four, you'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting.
Plus all the deaths from exposure.
Maybe the thought of it won't induce terror in us now.
But if it did happen, the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869303</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on the definition.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256495940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>all that fearmongering of "terrorists" (that don't exist)</p></div> </blockquote><p>Go tell an Israeli that terrorists don't exist. Or an Iraqi, a New Yorker, a Lebanese or Egyptian Christian, or someone from Beslan or Bali.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all that fearmongering of " terrorists " ( that do n't exist ) Go tell an Israeli that terrorists do n't exist .
Or an Iraqi , a New Yorker , a Lebanese or Egyptian Christian , or someone from Beslan or Bali .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all that fearmongering of "terrorists" (that don't exist) Go tell an Israeli that terrorists don't exist.
Or an Iraqi, a New Yorker, a Lebanese or Egyptian Christian, or someone from Beslan or Bali.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869861</id>
	<title>wzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today <a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionkina.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">aion kina</a> [aionkina.com] breaking news<br><a href="http://www.game4power.com/" title="game4power.com" rel="nofollow">Buy wow gold</a> [game4power.com] the<br><a href="http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/" title="game4power.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold cheap</a> [game4power.com] Iranian<br><a href="http://www.aionshopping.com/" title="aionshopping.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionshopping.com] suicide<br><a href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" title="vipwarhammergold.com" rel="nofollow">warhammer gold</a> [vipwarhammergold.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">buy aion gold</a> [aionkina.com] bombings<br><a href="http://www.aionkina.com/" title="aionkina.com" rel="nofollow">cheap aion gold</a> [aionkina.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today aion gold [ aionkina.com ] aion kina [ aionkina.com ] breaking newsBuy wow gold [ game4power.com ] thewow gold cheap [ game4power.com ] Iranianaion gold [ aionshopping.com ] suicidewarhammer gold [ vipwarhammergold.com ] buy aion gold [ aionkina.com ] bombingscheap aion gold [ aionkina.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today aion gold [aionkina.com]aion kina [aionkina.com] breaking newsBuy wow gold [game4power.com] thewow gold cheap [game4power.com] Iranianaion gold [aionshopping.com] suicidewarhammer gold [vipwarhammergold.com]buy aion gold [aionkina.com] bombingscheap aion gold [aionkina.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867963</id>
	<title>cyborterror is a hollywood myth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it makes for silly movies, and sillier reality. enough said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it makes for silly movies , and sillier reality .
enough said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it makes for silly movies, and sillier reality.
enough said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869039</id>
	<title>Not Yet a Credible Threat, So...</title>
	<author>Sam the Nemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1256491500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's wait till it becomes one.
<p>
&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's wait till it becomes one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's wait till it becomes one.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868345</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1256481420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If New York lost power for more than a week (especially in the middle of winter or summer), there would be real terror. By day four, you'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting. Plus all the deaths from exposure. Maybe the thought of it won't induce terror in us now. But if it did happen, the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response. Seriously.</p></div><p>Loss of power does not in any way mean law enforcement would simply abandon the city. I suspect more property damage would occur in a sports riot than in an overloaded power grid. It would be a problem, but police would still be there, and they have probably trained for such scenarios.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If New York lost power for more than a week ( especially in the middle of winter or summer ) , there would be real terror .
By day four , you 'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting .
Plus all the deaths from exposure .
Maybe the thought of it wo n't induce terror in us now .
But if it did happen , the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response .
Seriously.Loss of power does not in any way mean law enforcement would simply abandon the city .
I suspect more property damage would occur in a sports riot than in an overloaded power grid .
It would be a problem , but police would still be there , and they have probably trained for such scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If New York lost power for more than a week (especially in the middle of winter or summer), there would be real terror.
By day four, you'll have fucking retarded amounts of looting.
Plus all the deaths from exposure.
Maybe the thought of it won't induce terror in us now.
But if it did happen, the very idea of shit like that happening in your city would very much induce a terror response.
Seriously.Loss of power does not in any way mean law enforcement would simply abandon the city.
I suspect more property damage would occur in a sports riot than in an overloaded power grid.
It would be a problem, but police would still be there, and they have probably trained for such scenarios.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868991</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1256490420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great point.  I think electronic infrastructure security should be beefed up, but I doubt it would be done in an intelligent manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great point .
I think electronic infrastructure security should be beefed up , but I doubt it would be done in an intelligent manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great point.
I think electronic infrastructure security should be beefed up, but I doubt it would be done in an intelligent manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867765</id>
	<title>Re:Not yet - shouldn't we still care?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1256473500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would go along with the strategy of the US government for the last while now. Ignore the threat of a housing meltdown for nearly a decade until it is too late and nothing can be done about it. Ignore the national deficit and ballooning budget until it is too late and there is nothing we can do about it (actually there is still time on that one, just not much). Ignore the levees until it is too late and an entire city is under water. Ignoring the real problems while instead focusing on things that seem more exciting is a long habit among government elected officials. California is it's own case study of this.<br> <br>
On the other hand, you don't want to go overboard....as Eisenhower said, "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." There has to be balance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would go along with the strategy of the US government for the last while now .
Ignore the threat of a housing meltdown for nearly a decade until it is too late and nothing can be done about it .
Ignore the national deficit and ballooning budget until it is too late and there is nothing we can do about it ( actually there is still time on that one , just not much ) .
Ignore the levees until it is too late and an entire city is under water .
Ignoring the real problems while instead focusing on things that seem more exciting is a long habit among government elected officials .
California is it 's own case study of this .
On the other hand , you do n't want to go overboard....as Eisenhower said , " We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security .
" There has to be balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would go along with the strategy of the US government for the last while now.
Ignore the threat of a housing meltdown for nearly a decade until it is too late and nothing can be done about it.
Ignore the national deficit and ballooning budget until it is too late and there is nothing we can do about it (actually there is still time on that one, just not much).
Ignore the levees until it is too late and an entire city is under water.
Ignoring the real problems while instead focusing on things that seem more exciting is a long habit among government elected officials.
California is it's own case study of this.
On the other hand, you don't want to go overboard....as Eisenhower said, "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
" There has to be balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868545</id>
	<title>Re:Cyberterrorism is a silly concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America. It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives. But it wasn't terrifying. It was just annoying.</p></div><p>Now imagine if N. Korea or Iran had caused it.<br>Would it still be annoying or would it be a tangible threat?</p><p>Personally: I'm betting a large portion of the populace would call it an Act of War.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years back , we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America .
It was very inconvenient , and it cost a huge amount of money , and it even resulted in the loss of some lives .
But it was n't terrifying .
It was just annoying.Now imagine if N. Korea or Iran had caused it.Would it still be annoying or would it be a tangible threat ? Personally : I 'm betting a large portion of the populace would call it an Act of War .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years back, we had an accidental shutdown of the power supply of most of the eastern North America.
It was very inconvenient, and it cost a huge amount of money, and it even resulted in the loss of some lives.
But it wasn't terrifying.
It was just annoying.Now imagine if N. Korea or Iran had caused it.Would it still be annoying or would it be a tangible threat?Personally: I'm betting a large portion of the populace would call it an Act of War.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29874249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29872863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2138243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29872863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29874249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29871701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29869303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29873747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29868339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2138243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2138243.29867363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
