<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_1758226</id>
	<title>The Software Router As MiFi Killer</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256754600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.novatelwireless.com/">MiFi Mobile Router</a> has been getting a <a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/07/24/need-a-connection-sorry-this-is-myfi/">lot</a> <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/myfi-plus-ipod-touch-almost-equals-iphone/">of</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/technology/personaltech/07pogue.html">positive reviews</a> these days, for combining a cellular modem, WiFi radio and battery pack in a portable device.  But playing with a beta release of a <a href="http://www.connectify.me/">software based wireless router</a> for Windows 7 has me wondering if there's any future to these dedicated, multi-radio routers.  Is the future that every PC should be a router?  Or is that a <a href="http://www.joikushop.com/">job best left to a cell phone</a>?"</i> I just drove across the country and back with a MiFi (using Verizon's service, which was not zippy but very reliable); it strikes me that being nicely cross-platform and <em>not</em> requiring a laptop with its own cell-network connection is a serious advantage for the MiFi or any similar device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The MiFi Mobile Router has been getting a lot of positive reviews these days , for combining a cellular modem , WiFi radio and battery pack in a portable device .
But playing with a beta release of a software based wireless router for Windows 7 has me wondering if there 's any future to these dedicated , multi-radio routers .
Is the future that every PC should be a router ?
Or is that a job best left to a cell phone ?
" I just drove across the country and back with a MiFi ( using Verizon 's service , which was not zippy but very reliable ) ; it strikes me that being nicely cross-platform and not requiring a laptop with its own cell-network connection is a serious advantage for the MiFi or any similar device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The MiFi Mobile Router has been getting a lot of positive reviews these days, for combining a cellular modem, WiFi radio and battery pack in a portable device.
But playing with a beta release of a software based wireless router for Windows 7 has me wondering if there's any future to these dedicated, multi-radio routers.
Is the future that every PC should be a router?
Or is that a job best left to a cell phone?
" I just drove across the country and back with a MiFi (using Verizon's service, which was not zippy but very reliable); it strikes me that being nicely cross-platform and not requiring a laptop with its own cell-network connection is a serious advantage for the MiFi or any similar device.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903657</id>
	<title>Re:WMWiFiRouter FTW</title>
	<author>ElBorba</author>
	<datestamp>1256729880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, the only problem is that technically you're breaking the terms of most contracts by using the data service with other devices.</p><p>Of course, this should stop no one.</p><p>Also, I would encourage anyone who would even consider BUYING a software add-on that permits tethering to make a quick jaunt over to xda-developers.com and flash a new ROM onto your device that will give you that native functionality of Windows Mobile (5 and 6 both have internet connection sharing native in the OS) but will also give you better performance and features than your phone vendor would ever care for you to have access to.</p><p>ALSO, you can tether using bluetooth, so as long as your phone is on you can get to the internet from your other bluetooth-enabled devices like your netbook or laptop and without all the battery drain of provisional 802.X wifi.</p><p>It's just crazy that phone companies would create this "device" to charge you for what you've already got in your pocket.</p><p>If you've got a WM phone do yourself a favor and log in to xda-developers.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the only problem is that technically you 're breaking the terms of most contracts by using the data service with other devices.Of course , this should stop no one.Also , I would encourage anyone who would even consider BUYING a software add-on that permits tethering to make a quick jaunt over to xda-developers.com and flash a new ROM onto your device that will give you that native functionality of Windows Mobile ( 5 and 6 both have internet connection sharing native in the OS ) but will also give you better performance and features than your phone vendor would ever care for you to have access to.ALSO , you can tether using bluetooth , so as long as your phone is on you can get to the internet from your other bluetooth-enabled devices like your netbook or laptop and without all the battery drain of provisional 802.X wifi.It 's just crazy that phone companies would create this " device " to charge you for what you 've already got in your pocket.If you 've got a WM phone do yourself a favor and log in to xda-developers.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the only problem is that technically you're breaking the terms of most contracts by using the data service with other devices.Of course, this should stop no one.Also, I would encourage anyone who would even consider BUYING a software add-on that permits tethering to make a quick jaunt over to xda-developers.com and flash a new ROM onto your device that will give you that native functionality of Windows Mobile (5 and 6 both have internet connection sharing native in the OS) but will also give you better performance and features than your phone vendor would ever care for you to have access to.ALSO, you can tether using bluetooth, so as long as your phone is on you can get to the internet from your other bluetooth-enabled devices like your netbook or laptop and without all the battery drain of provisional 802.X wifi.It's just crazy that phone companies would create this "device" to charge you for what you've already got in your pocket.If you've got a WM phone do yourself a favor and log in to xda-developers.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</id>
	<title>Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. And</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.</p><p>Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software. We don't use PCs as routers because it's wasteful and inconvenient. Think about it for 5 seconds: Why do people use dedicated router rather than using this feature that's been in the OS forever? It's because using a PC as a router is annoying and wasteful, even at home. One machine always needs to be on for the others to get a connection. If that one machine breaks, the whole network goes down. Apply this to the road where power and space are more scarce. Even less convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router , even previous versions of Windows , without additional software .
We do n't use PCs as routers because it 's wasteful and inconvenient .
Think about it for 5 seconds : Why do people use dedicated router rather than using this feature that 's been in the OS forever ?
It 's because using a PC as a router is annoying and wasteful , even at home .
One machine always needs to be on for the others to get a connection .
If that one machine breaks , the whole network goes down .
Apply this to the road where power and space are more scarce .
Even less convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software.
We don't use PCs as routers because it's wasteful and inconvenient.
Think about it for 5 seconds: Why do people use dedicated router rather than using this feature that's been in the OS forever?
It's because using a PC as a router is annoying and wasteful, even at home.
One machine always needs to be on for the others to get a connection.
If that one machine breaks, the whole network goes down.
Apply this to the road where power and space are more scarce.
Even less convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901777</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1256763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>madwifi had that same capability 3-4 years ago.  I think that capability has been migrated to most Linux wireless drivers with the new mac80211-based wireless stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>madwifi had that same capability 3-4 years ago .
I think that capability has been migrated to most Linux wireless drivers with the new mac80211-based wireless stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>madwifi had that same capability 3-4 years ago.
I think that capability has been migrated to most Linux wireless drivers with the new mac80211-based wireless stack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900933</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.</p></div><p>Mr. Salinger, is that you? I seem to recall you writing awhile ago, "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. That way I wouldn't have to have any g****m stupid, useless conversations with anybody."</p><p>A powered off laptop in a bag on a bus, train, or at an airport terminal is just as vulnerable to being "hacked" by a passerby. You don't need to connect a computer to a network to have its security compromised. A computer today without networking functionality is of limited utility; For the past thirty years now, there has been a constant march towards integration and networking of information technology, simply because of gestalt: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can't just cut off access to the rest of the world, and consider yourself secured. This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying "Screw the world!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.Mr .
Salinger , is that you ?
I seem to recall you writing awhile ago , " I thought what I 'd do was , I 'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes .
That way I would n't have to have any g * * * * m stupid , useless conversations with anybody .
" A powered off laptop in a bag on a bus , train , or at an airport terminal is just as vulnerable to being " hacked " by a passerby .
You do n't need to connect a computer to a network to have its security compromised .
A computer today without networking functionality is of limited utility ; For the past thirty years now , there has been a constant march towards integration and networking of information technology , simply because of gestalt : The whole is greater than the sum of its parts .
You ca n't just cut off access to the rest of the world , and consider yourself secured .
This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying " Screw the world !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.Mr.
Salinger, is that you?
I seem to recall you writing awhile ago, "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
That way I wouldn't have to have any g****m stupid, useless conversations with anybody.
"A powered off laptop in a bag on a bus, train, or at an airport terminal is just as vulnerable to being "hacked" by a passerby.
You don't need to connect a computer to a network to have its security compromised.
A computer today without networking functionality is of limited utility; For the past thirty years now, there has been a constant march towards integration and networking of information technology, simply because of gestalt: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
You can't just cut off access to the rest of the world, and consider yourself secured.
This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying "Screw the world!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902223</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This provides both router and a Wifi infrastructure mode, not ad-hoc mode. And the router is the real thing, much better than MS's crufty ICS. For one, ad-hoc connections are usually limited to 802.11b speeds, up to 11Mb/s... infrastructure can go full speed (g/n). Probably no big deal for connection sharing, but for streaming media, big deal. You also can't disable SSID broadcast in ad-hoc mode (haven't figured out how to in Connectify yet, either, but it's at least technically possible).</p><p>Apparently, this works even if the network you're sharing is hooked in via the same Wifi connection.That might not seem useful, but certainly for pay-for-access Wifi, this lets all your devices, friends or associates, etc. share just one pay-for connection (airports, some hotels, etc). Some public hotspots are also hostile to small devices, they only want to see computers. So there's some sense in here. And hey, free right now anyway. I figure I'll see if it's something I use now, before there's any money involved.</p><p>Another example... my kid's college dorm doesn't allow the use of Wifi based routers, but everyone has a laptop. If we install this on his laptop, in theory he'll be able to get iPod and X-Box connectivity in "stealth" mode... no router to be seen, no SSID broadcast, and every Wifi device is happy on infrastructure... some have issues in ad-hoc mode. That's what led me to playing with this on my Win7 machine this week (the kid doesn't have Win7 installed yet, but he's nearly as eager as I to see Vista wiped from all memory, machine and human, both. Still deciding about upgrading the XP machine... it ain't exactly broken, not sure it needs fixing).</p><p>Obviously, skilled Ubuntu users have less need of simple, end-user tweaked solutions. They write their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  Not as often or as well as Gentoo or Slackware users, but sure, if Ubuntu can't already configure your PC as with a router and infrastructure mode, you'll code that puppy up over morning coffee. In Python, most likely.. every Ubuntu coder I know just LOVES the Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This provides both router and a Wifi infrastructure mode , not ad-hoc mode .
And the router is the real thing , much better than MS 's crufty ICS .
For one , ad-hoc connections are usually limited to 802.11b speeds , up to 11Mb/s... infrastructure can go full speed ( g/n ) .
Probably no big deal for connection sharing , but for streaming media , big deal .
You also ca n't disable SSID broadcast in ad-hoc mode ( have n't figured out how to in Connectify yet , either , but it 's at least technically possible ) .Apparently , this works even if the network you 're sharing is hooked in via the same Wifi connection.That might not seem useful , but certainly for pay-for-access Wifi , this lets all your devices , friends or associates , etc .
share just one pay-for connection ( airports , some hotels , etc ) .
Some public hotspots are also hostile to small devices , they only want to see computers .
So there 's some sense in here .
And hey , free right now anyway .
I figure I 'll see if it 's something I use now , before there 's any money involved.Another example... my kid 's college dorm does n't allow the use of Wifi based routers , but everyone has a laptop .
If we install this on his laptop , in theory he 'll be able to get iPod and X-Box connectivity in " stealth " mode... no router to be seen , no SSID broadcast , and every Wifi device is happy on infrastructure... some have issues in ad-hoc mode .
That 's what led me to playing with this on my Win7 machine this week ( the kid does n't have Win7 installed yet , but he 's nearly as eager as I to see Vista wiped from all memory , machine and human , both .
Still deciding about upgrading the XP machine... it ai n't exactly broken , not sure it needs fixing ) .Obviously , skilled Ubuntu users have less need of simple , end-user tweaked solutions .
They write their own : - ) Not as often or as well as Gentoo or Slackware users , but sure , if Ubuntu ca n't already configure your PC as with a router and infrastructure mode , you 'll code that puppy up over morning coffee .
In Python , most likely.. every Ubuntu coder I know just LOVES the Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This provides both router and a Wifi infrastructure mode, not ad-hoc mode.
And the router is the real thing, much better than MS's crufty ICS.
For one, ad-hoc connections are usually limited to 802.11b speeds, up to 11Mb/s... infrastructure can go full speed (g/n).
Probably no big deal for connection sharing, but for streaming media, big deal.
You also can't disable SSID broadcast in ad-hoc mode (haven't figured out how to in Connectify yet, either, but it's at least technically possible).Apparently, this works even if the network you're sharing is hooked in via the same Wifi connection.That might not seem useful, but certainly for pay-for-access Wifi, this lets all your devices, friends or associates, etc.
share just one pay-for connection (airports, some hotels, etc).
Some public hotspots are also hostile to small devices, they only want to see computers.
So there's some sense in here.
And hey, free right now anyway.
I figure I'll see if it's something I use now, before there's any money involved.Another example... my kid's college dorm doesn't allow the use of Wifi based routers, but everyone has a laptop.
If we install this on his laptop, in theory he'll be able to get iPod and X-Box connectivity in "stealth" mode... no router to be seen, no SSID broadcast, and every Wifi device is happy on infrastructure... some have issues in ad-hoc mode.
That's what led me to playing with this on my Win7 machine this week (the kid doesn't have Win7 installed yet, but he's nearly as eager as I to see Vista wiped from all memory, machine and human, both.
Still deciding about upgrading the XP machine... it ain't exactly broken, not sure it needs fixing).Obviously, skilled Ubuntu users have less need of simple, end-user tweaked solutions.
They write their own :-)  Not as often or as well as Gentoo or Slackware users, but sure, if Ubuntu can't already configure your PC as with a router and infrastructure mode, you'll code that puppy up over morning coffee.
In Python, most likely.. every Ubuntu coder I know just LOVES the Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902863</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1256725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I see exactly one use for the device.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>(there are other scenarios that are similar to this, as well.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Hmm, I see, can you tell me more?</p><p>Even ignoring the internal contradiction in your post. There are many more uses for this device than simply getting your kids online during a family vacation when the only alternatives are slapping them and giving them your laptop. That would actually be towards the end of the list for me if I were to start naming uses for a computer that can share a wifi connection. Of course the MiFi eliminates this problem entirely since you don't need a mobile broadband card, or a computer that supports wifi sharing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see exactly one use for the device .
... ( there are other scenarios that are similar to this , as well .
) Hmm , I see , can you tell me more ? Even ignoring the internal contradiction in your post .
There are many more uses for this device than simply getting your kids online during a family vacation when the only alternatives are slapping them and giving them your laptop .
That would actually be towards the end of the list for me if I were to start naming uses for a computer that can share a wifi connection .
Of course the MiFi eliminates this problem entirely since you do n't need a mobile broadband card , or a computer that supports wifi sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see exactly one use for the device.
...(there are other scenarios that are similar to this, as well.
)Hmm, I see, can you tell me more?Even ignoring the internal contradiction in your post.
There are many more uses for this device than simply getting your kids online during a family vacation when the only alternatives are slapping them and giving them your laptop.
That would actually be towards the end of the list for me if I were to start naming uses for a computer that can share a wifi connection.
Of course the MiFi eliminates this problem entirely since you don't need a mobile broadband card, or a computer that supports wifi sharing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901893</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1256720760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box. Then one day I realized I was using about $50/yr in electricity just so I could have a "free" replacement for a $59.99 router.</p></div></blockquote><p>1) Your elecricity cost estimate is high, that $60 router is also going to draw power.  You calculated electricity including taxes, but the router without so it's even more expensive.  I'd call it 3+ years before you make-up the purchase price... hope it works that long.</p><p>2) There's nothing stopping you from underclocking and undervolting that PC until it draws very little power.  I bought a 550MHz AMD K6-3 with motherboard on eBay for $20 shipped, and stuck it in an old case, underclocked it to 100MHz (drawing all of 5 watts), running with just one fan powered by the 5V rail, an old compact-flash card for a HDD, running COMPLETELY silent.  It's worked perfectly for several years now.</p><p>3)  While a PC may use more electricity, at least it actually works.  How many times a week are you power-cycling your $60 router?  Plus, the PC allows installing ANY SOFTWARE YOU COULD POSSIBLY WANT.  Being able to use a REAL stateful firewall is worth far more than the difference in power usage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box .
Then one day I realized I was using about $ 50/yr in electricity just so I could have a " free " replacement for a $ 59.99 router.1 ) Your elecricity cost estimate is high , that $ 60 router is also going to draw power .
You calculated electricity including taxes , but the router without so it 's even more expensive .
I 'd call it 3 + years before you make-up the purchase price... hope it works that long.2 ) There 's nothing stopping you from underclocking and undervolting that PC until it draws very little power .
I bought a 550MHz AMD K6-3 with motherboard on eBay for $ 20 shipped , and stuck it in an old case , underclocked it to 100MHz ( drawing all of 5 watts ) , running with just one fan powered by the 5V rail , an old compact-flash card for a HDD , running COMPLETELY silent .
It 's worked perfectly for several years now.3 ) While a PC may use more electricity , at least it actually works .
How many times a week are you power-cycling your $ 60 router ?
Plus , the PC allows installing ANY SOFTWARE YOU COULD POSSIBLY WANT .
Being able to use a REAL stateful firewall is worth far more than the difference in power usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box.
Then one day I realized I was using about $50/yr in electricity just so I could have a "free" replacement for a $59.99 router.1) Your elecricity cost estimate is high, that $60 router is also going to draw power.
You calculated electricity including taxes, but the router without so it's even more expensive.
I'd call it 3+ years before you make-up the purchase price... hope it works that long.2) There's nothing stopping you from underclocking and undervolting that PC until it draws very little power.
I bought a 550MHz AMD K6-3 with motherboard on eBay for $20 shipped, and stuck it in an old case, underclocked it to 100MHz (drawing all of 5 watts), running with just one fan powered by the 5V rail, an old compact-flash card for a HDD, running COMPLETELY silent.
It's worked perfectly for several years now.3)  While a PC may use more electricity, at least it actually works.
How many times a week are you power-cycling your $60 router?
Plus, the PC allows installing ANY SOFTWARE YOU COULD POSSIBLY WANT.
Being able to use a REAL stateful firewall is worth far more than the difference in power usage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907255</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>i.of.the.storm</author>
	<datestamp>1256758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is different from adhoc wifi connections. For example, with wifi device virtualization you can connect to say a secured wifi network with your laptop and then share it with other people who don't normally have access to it. Adhoc+bridged connections have existed and had GUIs even in Windows for ages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is different from adhoc wifi connections .
For example , with wifi device virtualization you can connect to say a secured wifi network with your laptop and then share it with other people who do n't normally have access to it .
Adhoc + bridged connections have existed and had GUIs even in Windows for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is different from adhoc wifi connections.
For example, with wifi device virtualization you can connect to say a secured wifi network with your laptop and then share it with other people who don't normally have access to it.
Adhoc+bridged connections have existed and had GUIs even in Windows for ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901039</id>
	<title>I don't want to have to lug around a win 7 laptop</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1256760060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to have internet access for my DSi or PSP.  Mi-Fi gives me world internet access for anything that speaks Wi-Fi and fits very comfortably indeed in any pocket.  Battery lasts longer than most laptops, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to have internet access for my DSi or PSP .
Mi-Fi gives me world internet access for anything that speaks Wi-Fi and fits very comfortably indeed in any pocket .
Battery lasts longer than most laptops , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to have internet access for my DSi or PSP.
Mi-Fi gives me world internet access for anything that speaks Wi-Fi and fits very comfortably indeed in any pocket.
Battery lasts longer than most laptops, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903805</id>
	<title>Re:It's a dead parrrot. This device is obsolete</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1256730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.</p></div><p>Yeah, except many of them need to be rooted because the providers don't like it when you use your line for anything besides what <i>they</i> want you to use it for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every wifi capable ( S60 3rd Ed phone models ) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.Yeah , except many of them need to be rooted because the providers do n't like it when you use your line for anything besides what they want you to use it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.Yeah, except many of them need to be rooted because the providers don't like it when you use your line for anything besides what they want you to use it for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902597</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1256724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires. </i></p><p>I am really curious how many things and wires you have there!</p><p>Just think, <a href="http://www.futureofrealestatetechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/yellow\_wall.jpg" title="futureofre...nology.com">it could be worse!</a> [futureofre...nology.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires .
I am really curious how many things and wires you have there ! Just think , it could be worse !
[ futureofre...nology.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires.
I am really curious how many things and wires you have there!Just think, it could be worse!
[futureofre...nology.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29911729</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>HunterOfBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1256836260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it's separate from your computer you can put your MiFi by the window or somewhere where it gets the best reception but use your computer in a more comfortable setting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it 's separate from your computer you can put your MiFi by the window or somewhere where it gets the best reception but use your computer in a more comfortable setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it's separate from your computer you can put your MiFi by the window or somewhere where it gets the best reception but use your computer in a more comfortable setting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905571</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1256742540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>disabling SSID is a bad thing, it causes interference between WIFI channels. You'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID's being broadcast, as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.</p><p>I agree with the rest, but hiding SSID's both a: doesn't do anything good and b: does things bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>disabling SSID is a bad thing , it causes interference between WIFI channels .
You 'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID 's being broadcast , as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.I agree with the rest , but hiding SSID 's both a : does n't do anything good and b : does things bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>disabling SSID is a bad thing, it causes interference between WIFI channels.
You'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID's being broadcast, as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.I agree with the rest, but hiding SSID's both a: doesn't do anything good and b: does things bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903781</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1256730600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I 100\% agree with you.   Routers are Routers and PC's are PC's don't mix the two!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 100 \ % agree with you .
Routers are Routers and PC 's are PC 's do n't mix the two !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I 100\% agree with you.
Routers are Routers and PC's are PC's don't mix the two!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903163</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than perhaps using a PC as a range-extending relay, I can't see the point. If you're in range of a wi-fi network anyway, why share it though a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than perhaps using a PC as a range-extending relay , I ca n't see the point .
If you 're in range of a wi-fi network anyway , why share it though a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than perhaps using a PC as a range-extending relay, I can't see the point.
If you're in range of a wi-fi network anyway, why share it though a computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906957</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1256755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anybody trust a GPU maker to make a router product?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anybody trust a GPU maker to make a router product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anybody trust a GPU maker to make a router product?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901267</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1256761140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size. We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.</i></p><p>Mmmm.... No.</p><p>A properly configured firewall is the real solution.</p><p>Preferably on the switch/hub/router, but if you have to put it on the OS by all means.</p><p>Actually the real solution is to make the OS non-susceptible to running remote commands or code on its default configuration, but often that is too much to ask of some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size .
We do n't want to give people who do n't know better the idea that they do n't need them.Mmmm.... No.A properly configured firewall is the real solution.Preferably on the switch/hub/router , but if you have to put it on the OS by all means.Actually the real solution is to make the OS non-susceptible to running remote commands or code on its default configuration , but often that is too much to ask of some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size.
We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.Mmmm.... No.A properly configured firewall is the real solution.Preferably on the switch/hub/router, but if you have to put it on the OS by all means.Actually the real solution is to make the OS non-susceptible to running remote commands or code on its default configuration, but often that is too much to ask of some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906133</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I take it, it "just works" for any cracker too. How nice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I take it , it " just works " for any cracker too .
How nice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I take it, it "just works" for any cracker too.
How nice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</id>
	<title>I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>lidocaineus</author>
	<datestamp>1256758740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean if you're travelling, you either have something built in, a plug-in card, bluetooth tethering (I find this very convenient), and usb tethering.  I've never been in a situation where I need to share internet access while travelling to multiple devices, and while I can see it being a possible need, it doesn't seem to be much more than a niche thing?  Also, it's not TOO difficult to share a mobile internet connection provided you know the ins and outs of such things (though yes, this device would make it dead simple).</p><p>Maybe someone can enlighten me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean if you 're travelling , you either have something built in , a plug-in card , bluetooth tethering ( I find this very convenient ) , and usb tethering .
I 've never been in a situation where I need to share internet access while travelling to multiple devices , and while I can see it being a possible need , it does n't seem to be much more than a niche thing ?
Also , it 's not TOO difficult to share a mobile internet connection provided you know the ins and outs of such things ( though yes , this device would make it dead simple ) .Maybe someone can enlighten me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean if you're travelling, you either have something built in, a plug-in card, bluetooth tethering (I find this very convenient), and usb tethering.
I've never been in a situation where I need to share internet access while travelling to multiple devices, and while I can see it being a possible need, it doesn't seem to be much more than a niche thing?
Also, it's not TOO difficult to share a mobile internet connection provided you know the ins and outs of such things (though yes, this device would make it dead simple).Maybe someone can enlighten me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903435</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1256728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really need to try playing I-spy on I80, anywhere between Reno and Chicago..  a Day of desert scrub, day of rolling plains, day of corn.  You want to punch someone when they want to play that game again....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really need to try playing I-spy on I80 , anywhere between Reno and Chicago.. a Day of desert scrub , day of rolling plains , day of corn .
You want to punch someone when they want to play that game again... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really need to try playing I-spy on I80, anywhere between Reno and Chicago..  a Day of desert scrub, day of rolling plains, day of corn.
You want to punch someone when they want to play that game again....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900757</id>
	<title>Cellular Access</title>
	<author>Inominate</author>
	<datestamp>1256758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fast Cellular access is the key, cell phone based routers are the obvious solution since most computers lack any sort of cellular modem, and at best can use a dongle to do so.  The dongle is a pain in the ass.  Using one is often more expensive than sneaking wifi routing software onto a pda phone.  Not to mention the question of which cellular carrier do you use so your computer can be locked into it.</p><p>Basically, yes, as soon as PCs are able to access cellular networks easily, the cell-phone-turned-router will die.  But as long as the cellular networks remain a crapshoot where switching services and protocols is often necessary, why tie more of your devices to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fast Cellular access is the key , cell phone based routers are the obvious solution since most computers lack any sort of cellular modem , and at best can use a dongle to do so .
The dongle is a pain in the ass .
Using one is often more expensive than sneaking wifi routing software onto a pda phone .
Not to mention the question of which cellular carrier do you use so your computer can be locked into it.Basically , yes , as soon as PCs are able to access cellular networks easily , the cell-phone-turned-router will die .
But as long as the cellular networks remain a crapshoot where switching services and protocols is often necessary , why tie more of your devices to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fast Cellular access is the key, cell phone based routers are the obvious solution since most computers lack any sort of cellular modem, and at best can use a dongle to do so.
The dongle is a pain in the ass.
Using one is often more expensive than sneaking wifi routing software onto a pda phone.
Not to mention the question of which cellular carrier do you use so your computer can be locked into it.Basically, yes, as soon as PCs are able to access cellular networks easily, the cell-phone-turned-router will die.
But as long as the cellular networks remain a crapshoot where switching services and protocols is often necessary, why tie more of your devices to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901293</id>
	<title>not even much of a present</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian and WinMo phones already work as WiFi access points.  The only reason iPhones, Android, and Blackberry don't is because their corporate masters don't let them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian and WinMo phones already work as WiFi access points .
The only reason iPhones , Android , and Blackberry do n't is because their corporate masters do n't let them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian and WinMo phones already work as WiFi access points.
The only reason iPhones, Android, and Blackberry don't is because their corporate masters don't let them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not build the NAT router into the PC? I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires. Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not build the NAT router into the PC ?
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires .
Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not build the NAT router into the PC?
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires.
Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902559</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1256724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying "Screw the world!"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Darn.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me starts putting cans back on the shelf.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying " Screw the world !
" Darn .
/me starts putting cans back on the shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the digital equivalent of moving to Montana and amassing a stockpile of arms and food and saying "Screw the world!
"

Darn.
/me starts putting cans back on the shelf.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901013</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us have children with their own laptops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us have children with their own laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us have children with their own laptops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900873</id>
	<title>It's a dead parrrot. This device is obsolete</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1256759280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joiku Hotspot.</p><p>Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joiku Hotspot.Every wifi capable ( S60 3rd Ed phone models ) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joiku Hotspot.Every wifi capable (S60 3rd Ed phone models) mobile phone can be a wireless hotspot.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903115</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256727000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"And it consumes less electricity, which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time for the convenience of other users. "</i> <p>
Doesn't everyone leave all their computers on at home all the time anyway? Off the top of my head, I count 6 at home that I know are on...</p><p>
(I've still got to get the Sunfire and big Compaq Proliant server up and running again.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And it consumes less electricity , which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time for the convenience of other users .
" Does n't everyone leave all their computers on at home all the time anyway ?
Off the top of my head , I count 6 at home that I know are on.. . ( I 've still got to get the Sunfire and big Compaq Proliant server up and running again .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And it consumes less electricity, which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time for the convenience of other users.
" 
Doesn't everyone leave all their computers on at home all the time anyway?
Off the top of my head, I count 6 at home that I know are on...
(I've still got to get the Sunfire and big Compaq Proliant server up and running again.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907031</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless router?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1256755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like someone that's never run aircrack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like someone that 's never run aircrack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like someone that's never run aircrack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901499</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>slack\_justyb</author>
	<datestamp>1256762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a MiFi that I use when I go on business related trips.  Usually it is a small party of two or three people that come with me on trips (actually I am coming with them but that's just a matter of perspective.)  I tote the MiFi device and when we're somewhere where there is no WiFi (I know sounds hard to come by these days but they do exist) we just slap this little device on the table and right onto our VPN we go.<br>
<br>
They simplify the whole thing greatly and that is one of the big appeals that drive this type of device in my (actually someone else's I just work for them, see perspective above) company, simplicity.  I think that is what underlines a lot of technological choices where boxen are the alternatives.  Some people have time to maintain boxen for every single thing, others do not.  I prefer my Linux router over any store bought device any day, but that's because that's what I like to spend time on.  At work I don't get to have a lot of time so anything that simplifies the process is welcomed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a MiFi that I use when I go on business related trips .
Usually it is a small party of two or three people that come with me on trips ( actually I am coming with them but that 's just a matter of perspective .
) I tote the MiFi device and when we 're somewhere where there is no WiFi ( I know sounds hard to come by these days but they do exist ) we just slap this little device on the table and right onto our VPN we go .
They simplify the whole thing greatly and that is one of the big appeals that drive this type of device in my ( actually someone else 's I just work for them , see perspective above ) company , simplicity .
I think that is what underlines a lot of technological choices where boxen are the alternatives .
Some people have time to maintain boxen for every single thing , others do not .
I prefer my Linux router over any store bought device any day , but that 's because that 's what I like to spend time on .
At work I do n't get to have a lot of time so anything that simplifies the process is welcomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a MiFi that I use when I go on business related trips.
Usually it is a small party of two or three people that come with me on trips (actually I am coming with them but that's just a matter of perspective.
)  I tote the MiFi device and when we're somewhere where there is no WiFi (I know sounds hard to come by these days but they do exist) we just slap this little device on the table and right onto our VPN we go.
They simplify the whole thing greatly and that is one of the big appeals that drive this type of device in my (actually someone else's I just work for them, see perspective above) company, simplicity.
I think that is what underlines a lot of technological choices where boxen are the alternatives.
Some people have time to maintain boxen for every single thing, others do not.
I prefer my Linux router over any store bought device any day, but that's because that's what I like to spend time on.
At work I don't get to have a lot of time so anything that simplifies the process is welcomed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902265</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1256722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A hardware firewall is just a software firewall running on some else's CPU.</p><p>Though there are a few PCs coming out with an auxilary ARM CPU... you boot up on the ARM quick, run Linux or Android or something, to do simple things, but boot the full x86 for "real work". You could put a firewall and router on the ARM, give it something to do when the "full PC" mode is activate. Hmmm.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A hardware firewall is just a software firewall running on some else 's CPU.Though there are a few PCs coming out with an auxilary ARM CPU... you boot up on the ARM quick , run Linux or Android or something , to do simple things , but boot the full x86 for " real work " .
You could put a firewall and router on the ARM , give it something to do when the " full PC " mode is activate .
Hmmm.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hardware firewall is just a software firewall running on some else's CPU.Though there are a few PCs coming out with an auxilary ARM CPU... you boot up on the ARM quick, run Linux or Android or something, to do simple things, but boot the full x86 for "real work".
You could put a firewall and router on the ARM, give it something to do when the "full PC" mode is activate.
Hmmm.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29908657</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is the tireless old discussion where somebody mentions NAT in the context of security and get's "you noob, don't you know NAT is not a firewall"'ed for that, but I'll bite anyway.</p><p>A router doing S-NAT *is* effectively a firewall that has no restrictions on things going out and fully restricts what is coming in. This breaks end-to-end connectivity no more than a firewall which is configured in the same way, and is in fact functionally identical with the difference that with a firewall the behavior is it's main function while with a S-NAT router it's a side-effect of the sharing of one network address.</p><p>Also, I wonder, what would you do if you have more than one PC connected to the Internet and your ISP only lets you have one IPv4 address, what the hell would you do huh? noob</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is the tireless old discussion where somebody mentions NAT in the context of security and get 's " you noob , do n't you know NAT is not a firewall " 'ed for that , but I 'll bite anyway.A router doing S-NAT * is * effectively a firewall that has no restrictions on things going out and fully restricts what is coming in .
This breaks end-to-end connectivity no more than a firewall which is configured in the same way , and is in fact functionally identical with the difference that with a firewall the behavior is it 's main function while with a S-NAT router it 's a side-effect of the sharing of one network address.Also , I wonder , what would you do if you have more than one PC connected to the Internet and your ISP only lets you have one IPv4 address , what the hell would you do huh ?
noob</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is the tireless old discussion where somebody mentions NAT in the context of security and get's "you noob, don't you know NAT is not a firewall"'ed for that, but I'll bite anyway.A router doing S-NAT *is* effectively a firewall that has no restrictions on things going out and fully restricts what is coming in.
This breaks end-to-end connectivity no more than a firewall which is configured in the same way, and is in fact functionally identical with the difference that with a firewall the behavior is it's main function while with a S-NAT router it's a side-effect of the sharing of one network address.Also, I wonder, what would you do if you have more than one PC connected to the Internet and your ISP only lets you have one IPv4 address, what the hell would you do huh?
noob</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901009</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also lots of other reasons beyond security (as dedicated routers can be hacked too, of course):<br>*) Stability:   I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc.<br>*) Power consumption:  I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network.<br>*) Hardware suitability:  I don't want to need to have all my network stuff (wires, modem, etc) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet.  Also, I don't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer, using up slots and causing potential power problems.</p><p>Those are just what I can think of, but that's more than enough for me.  It's not as if this situation is anything new anyway... I used Internet Connection Sharing about a decade ago so I could have more than one computer using the dial up.  Once I got high speed I was glad to get a dedicated router box so that my computer was free from being the gateway.  I cannot foresee this changing; while merging devices is good, modularity is often better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also lots of other reasons beyond security ( as dedicated routers can be hacked too , of course ) : * ) Stability : I do n't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software , poorly cooled hardware , etc .
* ) Power consumption : I do n't want a 100 + W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network .
* ) Hardware suitability : I do n't want to need to have all my network stuff ( wires , modem , etc ) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet .
Also , I do n't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer , using up slots and causing potential power problems.Those are just what I can think of , but that 's more than enough for me .
It 's not as if this situation is anything new anyway... I used Internet Connection Sharing about a decade ago so I could have more than one computer using the dial up .
Once I got high speed I was glad to get a dedicated router box so that my computer was free from being the gateway .
I can not foresee this changing ; while merging devices is good , modularity is often better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also lots of other reasons beyond security (as dedicated routers can be hacked too, of course):*) Stability:   I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc.
*) Power consumption:  I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network.
*) Hardware suitability:  I don't want to need to have all my network stuff (wires, modem, etc) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet.
Also, I don't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer, using up slots and causing potential power problems.Those are just what I can think of, but that's more than enough for me.
It's not as if this situation is anything new anyway... I used Internet Connection Sharing about a decade ago so I could have more than one computer using the dial up.
Once I got high speed I was glad to get a dedicated router box so that my computer was free from being the gateway.
I cannot foresee this changing; while merging devices is good, modularity is often better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900755</id>
	<title>Wireless router?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yawn. The only semi-unique feature of this is the "Windows" part.<p><div class="quote"><p> Is the future that every PC should be a router?</p> </div><p>Absolutely not. If I wanted to share my Internet connection, I all I'd have to do is <em>not</em>  turn on encryption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn .
The only semi-unique feature of this is the " Windows " part .
Is the future that every PC should be a router ?
Absolutely not .
If I wanted to share my Internet connection , I all I 'd have to do is not turn on encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn.
The only semi-unique feature of this is the "Windows" part.
Is the future that every PC should be a router?
Absolutely not.
If I wanted to share my Internet connection, I all I'd have to do is not  turn on encryption.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902663</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1256724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function. It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure it was to connect computers together...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function .
It 's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.I 'm pretty sure it was to connect computers together.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function.
It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.I'm pretty sure it was to connect computers together...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906291</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1256748060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, there are instructions out there that show how to do this with Ubuntu and other Linuxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there are instructions out there that show how to do this with Ubuntu and other Linuxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there are instructions out there that show how to do this with Ubuntu and other Linuxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901473</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/~ObsessiveMathsFreak/journal/235561" title="slashdot.org">...and the horse you rode in on, sir.</a> [slashdot.org] And the horse you rode in on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and the horse you rode in on , sir .
[ slashdot.org ] And the horse you rode in on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and the horse you rode in on, sir.
[slashdot.org] And the horse you rode in on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</id>
	<title>NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the future that every PC should be a router?</p></div><p>No. Just no.</p><p>The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function. It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked. It's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time. And *nix computers, while better, can still be vulnerable. And both platforms can become vulnerable when the wrong software is running (anything that listens on a port can be vulnerable).</p><p>Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size. We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the future that every PC should be a router ? No .
Just no.The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function .
It 's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked .
It 's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time .
And * nix computers , while better , can still be vulnerable .
And both platforms can become vulnerable when the wrong software is running ( anything that listens on a port can be vulnerable ) .Basically , NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size .
We do n't want to give people who do n't know better the idea that they do n't need them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the future that every PC should be a router?No.
Just no.The reason we want dedicated routers has nothing to do with computers being incapable of serving the same function.
It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.
It's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time.
And *nix computers, while better, can still be vulnerable.
And both platforms can become vulnerable when the wrong software is running (anything that listens on a port can be vulnerable).Basically, NAT routers are the only thing limiting the hordes of zombie WinXP boxes to a reasonable size.
We don't want to give people who don't know better the idea that they don't need them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901585</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1256762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sadly, way more devices have wifi then have bluetooth. And in some nations the carriers loves disabling bluetooth  profiles they do not like, and get payed extra to turn them back on...</p><p>the pan never really materialized, instead the devices converged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sadly , way more devices have wifi then have bluetooth .
And in some nations the carriers loves disabling bluetooth profiles they do not like , and get payed extra to turn them back on...the pan never really materialized , instead the devices converged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sadly, way more devices have wifi then have bluetooth.
And in some nations the carriers loves disabling bluetooth  profiles they do not like, and get payed extra to turn them back on...the pan never really materialized, instead the devices converged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900871</id>
	<title>If I Recall Correctly...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1256759280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Intel laptop wireless chipsets have implemented this router "feature" for some time now, haven't they? And wasn't there a brouhaha because the router functionality was enabled by default at first?</p><p>I find it funny that I'm starting to read and hear about all these Windows 7 innovations - well, they're apparently new to the Windows community anyway. The latest Network World Twisted Pair podcast discussed a great new feature of Windows 7... it's Leopard's "web clip"! Start your copiers, indeed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Intel laptop wireless chipsets have implemented this router " feature " for some time now , have n't they ?
And was n't there a brouhaha because the router functionality was enabled by default at first ? I find it funny that I 'm starting to read and hear about all these Windows 7 innovations - well , they 're apparently new to the Windows community anyway .
The latest Network World Twisted Pair podcast discussed a great new feature of Windows 7... it 's Leopard 's " web clip " !
Start your copiers , indeed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Intel laptop wireless chipsets have implemented this router "feature" for some time now, haven't they?
And wasn't there a brouhaha because the router functionality was enabled by default at first?I find it funny that I'm starting to read and hear about all these Windows 7 innovations - well, they're apparently new to the Windows community anyway.
The latest Network World Twisted Pair podcast discussed a great new feature of Windows 7... it's Leopard's "web clip"!
Start your copiers, indeed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905335</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you EVER get tired of saying inane or completely batty things, you colossal bore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you EVER get tired of saying inane or completely batty things , you colossal bore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you EVER get tired of saying inane or completely batty things, you colossal bore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902133</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I drove across the country round trip twice (Charleston to Seattle round trip and SF to Pittsburgh round trip) in the 90's in a Ford Mustang GT with the wife and kids.  Once when the kids were 3 and 4 and another when they were 7 and 8.  On one of the trips, one of the kids had chicken pox.  Everything we needed for the trip AND a stay at our destination was stuffed in the hatch.  No Tv's, ipods, cell phones, internet, DVD players, walkmans whatever and we had a good time.  You don't need a 9 passenger Suburban equiped as a mobile entertainment center to do it.  I also drive about 50 trips under the same circumstances in the same car up and down the east coast.   Please, no could be's but we need this and that etc..  I've done it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I drove across the country round trip twice ( Charleston to Seattle round trip and SF to Pittsburgh round trip ) in the 90 's in a Ford Mustang GT with the wife and kids .
Once when the kids were 3 and 4 and another when they were 7 and 8 .
On one of the trips , one of the kids had chicken pox .
Everything we needed for the trip AND a stay at our destination was stuffed in the hatch .
No Tv 's , ipods , cell phones , internet , DVD players , walkmans whatever and we had a good time .
You do n't need a 9 passenger Suburban equiped as a mobile entertainment center to do it .
I also drive about 50 trips under the same circumstances in the same car up and down the east coast .
Please , no could be 's but we need this and that etc.. I 've done it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drove across the country round trip twice (Charleston to Seattle round trip and SF to Pittsburgh round trip) in the 90's in a Ford Mustang GT with the wife and kids.
Once when the kids were 3 and 4 and another when they were 7 and 8.
On one of the trips, one of the kids had chicken pox.
Everything we needed for the trip AND a stay at our destination was stuffed in the hatch.
No Tv's, ipods, cell phones, internet, DVD players, walkmans whatever and we had a good time.
You don't need a 9 passenger Suburban equiped as a mobile entertainment center to do it.
I also drive about 50 trips under the same circumstances in the same car up and down the east coast.
Please, no could be's but we need this and that etc..  I've done it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900885</id>
	<title>I've been waiting for the MiFi for a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since convergence went completely wild, I've been expecting a device that diverges drastically. I expected that eventually, rather than one device that does it all, you would have multiple small devices that each do one thing, but can talk to each other. Part of the convenience of a camera in a phone is that it can send the pictures wirelessly to another person. What if your regular camera could do that? More than a few people would probably go back to the much higher quality discrete camera device if they had that convenience.</p><p>Well, hello Eye-Fi.</p><p>But the critical component that I have been hoping to see made into a discrete device was the cellular radio itself. If the cellular radio was separate, you could use the same connection for both an audio handset and a PDA. Or not use it if you don't want that functionality. I was expecting it to be based on bluetooth, but wi-fi works just as well. Probably better.</p><p>So now I have my MiFi, and it works pretty much as I expected. I don't have a Skype device, but I could get one. But otherwise I have my PDA (iPod Touch), PMP with online marketplace (Zune HD), and camera that can all use the internet. And each device separately does what it does much better than a jack-of-all-trades convergent device possibly could. I can replace one part, say the iPod Touch as a PDA, with an even better device, such as the consumer version of the Zii will hopefully be, whenever I want, while still keeping another device, such as the Zune, that does what it does better than either of those do.</p><p>I'm relieved that the MiFi exists and I can escape the whole race to the bottom of convergence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since convergence went completely wild , I 've been expecting a device that diverges drastically .
I expected that eventually , rather than one device that does it all , you would have multiple small devices that each do one thing , but can talk to each other .
Part of the convenience of a camera in a phone is that it can send the pictures wirelessly to another person .
What if your regular camera could do that ?
More than a few people would probably go back to the much higher quality discrete camera device if they had that convenience.Well , hello Eye-Fi.But the critical component that I have been hoping to see made into a discrete device was the cellular radio itself .
If the cellular radio was separate , you could use the same connection for both an audio handset and a PDA .
Or not use it if you do n't want that functionality .
I was expecting it to be based on bluetooth , but wi-fi works just as well .
Probably better.So now I have my MiFi , and it works pretty much as I expected .
I do n't have a Skype device , but I could get one .
But otherwise I have my PDA ( iPod Touch ) , PMP with online marketplace ( Zune HD ) , and camera that can all use the internet .
And each device separately does what it does much better than a jack-of-all-trades convergent device possibly could .
I can replace one part , say the iPod Touch as a PDA , with an even better device , such as the consumer version of the Zii will hopefully be , whenever I want , while still keeping another device , such as the Zune , that does what it does better than either of those do.I 'm relieved that the MiFi exists and I can escape the whole race to the bottom of convergence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since convergence went completely wild, I've been expecting a device that diverges drastically.
I expected that eventually, rather than one device that does it all, you would have multiple small devices that each do one thing, but can talk to each other.
Part of the convenience of a camera in a phone is that it can send the pictures wirelessly to another person.
What if your regular camera could do that?
More than a few people would probably go back to the much higher quality discrete camera device if they had that convenience.Well, hello Eye-Fi.But the critical component that I have been hoping to see made into a discrete device was the cellular radio itself.
If the cellular radio was separate, you could use the same connection for both an audio handset and a PDA.
Or not use it if you don't want that functionality.
I was expecting it to be based on bluetooth, but wi-fi works just as well.
Probably better.So now I have my MiFi, and it works pretty much as I expected.
I don't have a Skype device, but I could get one.
But otherwise I have my PDA (iPod Touch), PMP with online marketplace (Zune HD), and camera that can all use the internet.
And each device separately does what it does much better than a jack-of-all-trades convergent device possibly could.
I can replace one part, say the iPod Touch as a PDA, with an even better device, such as the consumer version of the Zii will hopefully be, whenever I want, while still keeping another device, such as the Zune, that does what it does better than either of those do.I'm relieved that the MiFi exists and I can escape the whole race to the bottom of convergence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901123</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1256760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A group of people at a client location who come and go and don't have access to the clients network. A group of people responding to an area recently hit by natural disaster where landline service hasn't yet been restored. Both are real world examples from my previous employer who worked with insurance companies, they were paranoid about security and needed our people down along the gulf coast just months after Katrina.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A group of people at a client location who come and go and do n't have access to the clients network .
A group of people responding to an area recently hit by natural disaster where landline service has n't yet been restored .
Both are real world examples from my previous employer who worked with insurance companies , they were paranoid about security and needed our people down along the gulf coast just months after Katrina .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A group of people at a client location who come and go and don't have access to the clients network.
A group of people responding to an area recently hit by natural disaster where landline service hasn't yet been restored.
Both are real world examples from my previous employer who worked with insurance companies, they were paranoid about security and needed our people down along the gulf coast just months after Katrina.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906893</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1256754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Also, a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC, generally won't blue screen or get viruses. "</p><p>Nope but given the current shit state of electronics now days I'd not expect that piece of hardware to be worth the PCB it's built upon.</p><p>To date, since 2002, I've had:<br>5 Linksys routers<br>1 Buffalo Router<br>4 Netgear Routers<br>2 D-Link Routers<br>And a whole slew of other no-name generic routers, FAIL.</p><p>Most of the Linksys ones just can't handle more than 2-3 wireless clients with a full ethernet switch load. Netgears all crap out when ANY torrent starts coming in. The Buffalo (with DD-WRT firm) overheated and died, and the D-links couldn't maintain a wireless connection to save any person's life. The generic routers? Never got full speed links. never got more than 25mbit in any direction.</p><p>Also, last I checked, Cisco had to do some SERIOUS patching because a flaw in IOS was exposed, where it could be infected with a virus and spread, IIRC. What was that about being better? I don't think so. I've built more secure routing boxes and wireless repeaters using old pentium-2 age hardware and BSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Also , a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC , generally wo n't blue screen or get viruses .
" Nope but given the current shit state of electronics now days I 'd not expect that piece of hardware to be worth the PCB it 's built upon.To date , since 2002 , I 've had : 5 Linksys routers1 Buffalo Router4 Netgear Routers2 D-Link RoutersAnd a whole slew of other no-name generic routers , FAIL.Most of the Linksys ones just ca n't handle more than 2-3 wireless clients with a full ethernet switch load .
Netgears all crap out when ANY torrent starts coming in .
The Buffalo ( with DD-WRT firm ) overheated and died , and the D-links could n't maintain a wireless connection to save any person 's life .
The generic routers ?
Never got full speed links .
never got more than 25mbit in any direction.Also , last I checked , Cisco had to do some SERIOUS patching because a flaw in IOS was exposed , where it could be infected with a virus and spread , IIRC .
What was that about being better ?
I do n't think so .
I 've built more secure routing boxes and wireless repeaters using old pentium-2 age hardware and BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Also, a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC, generally won't blue screen or get viruses.
"Nope but given the current shit state of electronics now days I'd not expect that piece of hardware to be worth the PCB it's built upon.To date, since 2002, I've had:5 Linksys routers1 Buffalo Router4 Netgear Routers2 D-Link RoutersAnd a whole slew of other no-name generic routers, FAIL.Most of the Linksys ones just can't handle more than 2-3 wireless clients with a full ethernet switch load.
Netgears all crap out when ANY torrent starts coming in.
The Buffalo (with DD-WRT firm) overheated and died, and the D-links couldn't maintain a wireless connection to save any person's life.
The generic routers?
Never got full speed links.
never got more than 25mbit in any direction.Also, last I checked, Cisco had to do some SERIOUS patching because a flaw in IOS was exposed, where it could be infected with a virus and spread, IIRC.
What was that about being better?
I don't think so.
I've built more secure routing boxes and wireless repeaters using old pentium-2 age hardware and BSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900797</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe someone can enlighten me.</p></div><p>Some of us have friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone can enlighten me.Some of us have friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone can enlighten me.Some of us have friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901201</id>
	<title>if only</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1256760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only you could. Many cellular modem's have drivers that prevent this basically blocking any network access other than the cellular card.<br>That aside sharing a connection with overages costing between $100 and $250 per gig and roaming ranging from $1000 to $20,000 per gig seems dangerous at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only you could .
Many cellular modem 's have drivers that prevent this basically blocking any network access other than the cellular card.That aside sharing a connection with overages costing between $ 100 and $ 250 per gig and roaming ranging from $ 1000 to $ 20,000 per gig seems dangerous at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only you could.
Many cellular modem's have drivers that prevent this basically blocking any network access other than the cellular card.That aside sharing a connection with overages costing between $100 and $250 per gig and roaming ranging from $1000 to $20,000 per gig seems dangerous at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>though yes, this device would make it dead simple</p></div><p>I think that's the point. It is dead simple. It's virtually no configuration and it "just works." No fiddling about with drivers. It works with anything that has a usable 802.11 b/g/n wireless card in it.</p><p>So, you can use an iPod Touch/iPhone, Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, or any other hand held device that supports Wifi and doesn't have the ability to do bluetooth or usb tethering.</p><p>I think they need to start bundling these mini hotspots into cars for long trips. Then I can check my e-mail from my laptop (not while driving, mind you -- the wife can check it while I drive, or vice versa) the kids in the back can play on the net via ipod touch, or play their video games online with their DS/PSP, etc. etc.</p><p>Lots of applications for portable wifi hotspots via the cell towers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>though yes , this device would make it dead simpleI think that 's the point .
It is dead simple .
It 's virtually no configuration and it " just works .
" No fiddling about with drivers .
It works with anything that has a usable 802.11 b/g/n wireless card in it.So , you can use an iPod Touch/iPhone , Nintendo DS , Sony PSP , or any other hand held device that supports Wifi and does n't have the ability to do bluetooth or usb tethering.I think they need to start bundling these mini hotspots into cars for long trips .
Then I can check my e-mail from my laptop ( not while driving , mind you -- the wife can check it while I drive , or vice versa ) the kids in the back can play on the net via ipod touch , or play their video games online with their DS/PSP , etc .
etc.Lots of applications for portable wifi hotspots via the cell towers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though yes, this device would make it dead simpleI think that's the point.
It is dead simple.
It's virtually no configuration and it "just works.
" No fiddling about with drivers.
It works with anything that has a usable 802.11 b/g/n wireless card in it.So, you can use an iPod Touch/iPhone, Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, or any other hand held device that supports Wifi and doesn't have the ability to do bluetooth or usb tethering.I think they need to start bundling these mini hotspots into cars for long trips.
Then I can check my e-mail from my laptop (not while driving, mind you -- the wife can check it while I drive, or vice versa) the kids in the back can play on the net via ipod touch, or play their video games online with their DS/PSP, etc.
etc.Lots of applications for portable wifi hotspots via the cell towers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906925</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1256754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Stability: I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc."</p><p>Remember Cisco running scared because an IOS exploit was made public? Yea, so much for stability or security argument.</p><p>"Power consumption: I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network."</p><p>As opposed to the multi kilowatt internet backbone that's already on 24/7 to provide you with connectivity? Sure, you've got a lower power device, but lower power devices are in theory less secure because there's a thermodynamic limit and thus less powerful devices just aren't able to move as many electrons as needed to say, do realtime heuristic scanning of incoming packets and such to detect and stop intrusion.... Just invest in some real hardware, ignore consumer-grade crap, becase it's exactly that, crap.</p><p>"Hardware suitability: I don't want to need to have all my network stuff (wires, modem, etc) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet."</p><p>I point you to your first point: "poorly cooled hardware"</p><p>"Also, I don't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer, using up slots and causing potential power problems."</p><p>I know you meant stability issues, so here's the fix - use the same NIC model, thus you only have to worry about one set of drivers. If slots are a problem, well, hey, you can always get a single-slot PCI-Express MULTINIC! As if we haven't had those types of cards for, oh, I dunno, nearly a decade and a half. It's just a roboboard with ethernet instead of phone jacks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stability : I do n't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software , poorly cooled hardware , etc .
" Remember Cisco running scared because an IOS exploit was made public ?
Yea , so much for stability or security argument .
" Power consumption : I do n't want a 100 + W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network .
" As opposed to the multi kilowatt internet backbone that 's already on 24/7 to provide you with connectivity ?
Sure , you 've got a lower power device , but lower power devices are in theory less secure because there 's a thermodynamic limit and thus less powerful devices just are n't able to move as many electrons as needed to say , do realtime heuristic scanning of incoming packets and such to detect and stop intrusion.... Just invest in some real hardware , ignore consumer-grade crap , becase it 's exactly that , crap .
" Hardware suitability : I do n't want to need to have all my network stuff ( wires , modem , etc ) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet .
" I point you to your first point : " poorly cooled hardware " " Also , I do n't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer , using up slots and causing potential power problems .
" I know you meant stability issues , so here 's the fix - use the same NIC model , thus you only have to worry about one set of drivers .
If slots are a problem , well , hey , you can always get a single-slot PCI-Express MULTINIC !
As if we have n't had those types of cards for , oh , I dunno , nearly a decade and a half .
It 's just a roboboard with ethernet instead of phone jacks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stability: I don't want my whole network going down because I installed some updates or have bad software, poorly cooled hardware, etc.
"Remember Cisco running scared because an IOS exploit was made public?
Yea, so much for stability or security argument.
"Power consumption: I don't want a 100+W system on 24/7 just to maintain my network.
"As opposed to the multi kilowatt internet backbone that's already on 24/7 to provide you with connectivity?
Sure, you've got a lower power device, but lower power devices are in theory less secure because there's a thermodynamic limit and thus less powerful devices just aren't able to move as many electrons as needed to say, do realtime heuristic scanning of incoming packets and such to detect and stop intrusion.... Just invest in some real hardware, ignore consumer-grade crap, becase it's exactly that, crap.
"Hardware suitability: I don't want to need to have all my network stuff (wires, modem, etc) sitting under/near my desk when I can have my hub tucked away in a closet.
"I point you to your first point: "poorly cooled hardware""Also, I don't want to have a bunch of NICs in my computer, using up slots and causing potential power problems.
"I know you meant stability issues, so here's the fix - use the same NIC model, thus you only have to worry about one set of drivers.
If slots are a problem, well, hey, you can always get a single-slot PCI-Express MULTINIC!
As if we haven't had those types of cards for, oh, I dunno, nearly a decade and a half.
It's just a roboboard with ethernet instead of phone jacks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907039</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another idea is using the old Wingate software which is still maintained.  It is a third party utility, but it might be what one is needing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another idea is using the old Wingate software which is still maintained .
It is a third party utility , but it might be what one is needing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another idea is using the old Wingate software which is still maintained.
It is a third party utility, but it might be what one is needing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901365</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I took Greyhound, the bus had free wifi.  About half the people on the bus took advantage of it (me included) to check email, read the news, etc.  It's probably some variant of this sort of device...really nice.</p><p>For personal use...I'm not sure.  I'd like to be able to use my phone to talk to my laptop, but it seems like Bluetooth could handle that (if my laptop had Bluetooth, that is)...plus the fact I'm not willing to spring for a tetherable data plan.  (Mobile web is cheap and "unlimited", but tetherable data is expensive and has per-Mb costs.)  I suppose having the phone act as a wifi gateway would be convenient, since bluetooth is far from universal on computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I took Greyhound , the bus had free wifi .
About half the people on the bus took advantage of it ( me included ) to check email , read the news , etc .
It 's probably some variant of this sort of device...really nice.For personal use...I 'm not sure .
I 'd like to be able to use my phone to talk to my laptop , but it seems like Bluetooth could handle that ( if my laptop had Bluetooth , that is ) ...plus the fact I 'm not willing to spring for a tetherable data plan .
( Mobile web is cheap and " unlimited " , but tetherable data is expensive and has per-Mb costs .
) I suppose having the phone act as a wifi gateway would be convenient , since bluetooth is far from universal on computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I took Greyhound, the bus had free wifi.
About half the people on the bus took advantage of it (me included) to check email, read the news, etc.
It's probably some variant of this sort of device...really nice.For personal use...I'm not sure.
I'd like to be able to use my phone to talk to my laptop, but it seems like Bluetooth could handle that (if my laptop had Bluetooth, that is)...plus the fact I'm not willing to spring for a tetherable data plan.
(Mobile web is cheap and "unlimited", but tetherable data is expensive and has per-Mb costs.
)  I suppose having the phone act as a wifi gateway would be convenient, since bluetooth is far from universal on computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907557</id>
	<title>You miss the point</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; A properly configured firewall is the real solution.<br><br>Uh, read the original post again, you're missing the point. Even if those "NAT routers" aren't real firewalls, they ARE and HAVE BEEN protecting those windows machines from remote network attacks.<br><br>So much so that nowadays most attacks on windows are by exploiting application bugs (browser/PDF/flash) or by exploiting user ignorance (install this AV software/Windows Update now!).<br><br>Yes in theory an attacker with access to the ISP's adjacent network (directly or via BGP exploits) can get past the NAT device, but in practice that hardly ever happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A properly configured firewall is the real solution.Uh , read the original post again , you 're missing the point .
Even if those " NAT routers " are n't real firewalls , they ARE and HAVE BEEN protecting those windows machines from remote network attacks.So much so that nowadays most attacks on windows are by exploiting application bugs ( browser/PDF/flash ) or by exploiting user ignorance ( install this AV software/Windows Update now !
) .Yes in theory an attacker with access to the ISP 's adjacent network ( directly or via BGP exploits ) can get past the NAT device , but in practice that hardly ever happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; A properly configured firewall is the real solution.Uh, read the original post again, you're missing the point.
Even if those "NAT routers" aren't real firewalls, they ARE and HAVE BEEN protecting those windows machines from remote network attacks.So much so that nowadays most attacks on windows are by exploiting application bugs (browser/PDF/flash) or by exploiting user ignorance (install this AV software/Windows Update now!
).Yes in theory an attacker with access to the ISP's adjacent network (directly or via BGP exploits) can get past the NAT device, but in practice that hardly ever happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900833</id>
	<title>Vishing, MiFi</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1256759100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ack, with headlines shouting about Vishing and MiFi, two words I've never heard of, for possibly the first time in my life I feel out of the loop and too old for all these newfangled words, at 22.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>My first thought was that MiFi was a form of WiFi for Nintendo Miis, but that can't possibly be right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ack , with headlines shouting about Vishing and MiFi , two words I 've never heard of , for possibly the first time in my life I feel out of the loop and too old for all these newfangled words , at 22. : - ( My first thought was that MiFi was a form of WiFi for Nintendo Miis , but that ca n't possibly be right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ack, with headlines shouting about Vishing and MiFi, two words I've never heard of, for possibly the first time in my life I feel out of the loop and too old for all these newfangled words, at 22. :-(My first thought was that MiFi was a form of WiFi for Nintendo Miis, but that can't possibly be right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29904353</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1256734200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.</p><p>Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software.</p></div><p>On the Mac, it is called Internet Sharing. I've shared my Bluetooth Internet connection over WiFi with a friend at work. I've shared my wired Ethernet at home over WiFi on a G4 Cube with a Wii, a laptop, and a tablet. Only powered on when I needed it though. You can bridge any two interfaces you want, but only two AFAIKT; you can't share Ethernet over WiFi and Bluetooth over Firewire all at the same time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router , even previous versions of Windows , without additional software.On the Mac , it is called Internet Sharing .
I 've shared my Bluetooth Internet connection over WiFi with a friend at work .
I 've shared my wired Ethernet at home over WiFi on a G4 Cube with a Wii , a laptop , and a tablet .
Only powered on when I needed it though .
You can bridge any two interfaces you want , but only two AFAIKT ; you ca n't share Ethernet over WiFi and Bluetooth over Firewire all at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how this is suddenly news because Windows 7 has a GUI for this and touts it as a feature.Pretty much every modern OS can act as a router, even previous versions of Windows, without additional software.On the Mac, it is called Internet Sharing.
I've shared my Bluetooth Internet connection over WiFi with a friend at work.
I've shared my wired Ethernet at home over WiFi on a G4 Cube with a Wii, a laptop, and a tablet.
Only powered on when I needed it though.
You can bridge any two interfaces you want, but only two AFAIKT; you can't share Ethernet over WiFi and Bluetooth over Firewire all at the same time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29919669</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1256828040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked. It's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the Internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time. And *nix computers, while better, can still be vulnerable.</p></div><p>You said it.

</p><p>I still get burned up with the Cable company when they want me to jump through hoops to troubleshoot my cable connection, because they are artificially restricting my access via software and do not want to admit that simple fact, and the first thing they want you to do is pull out/turn off your firewall/router (hardware device) or  shutdown your router software only solution and connect directly up to their cable modem.  Makes me want to SCREAM and churn!

</p><p>Even more offensive when you did not have any problems for years, all the same hardware and software until they (<i>the cable company</i>), in their infinite wisdom, rolled out new software to your area to enhance/improve your service, right, not.  (<i>Bandwidth Shaping, throttling, Deep Packet Inspection, who knows what</i>); all you know is they installed something new between you and the Internet and the end result is your service is now providing you a fraction of the bandwidth you use to get.  And before, you would have been better off with DSL instead of a Cable modem from a bandwidth perspective specifically.  Now even more so.

</p><p>Does DSL throttle back service, for instance if you are told that they can provide 384K up and 1.5Mbps down, do you get 100\% of that or only a fraction?  Please no replies that are ONLY OPINIONS, someone with the DD-WRT software running on a hardware firewall/router that has DSL service (anyone), please check your status / bandwidth windows and tell me what you see happening as I need to know if I would be better off to switch away from cable.  (I.e my cable Speed test is phenomenal; their service marketing promise is good (up to 8MB, 10MB, 12MB or 14MPB) also; however the reality sucks. I do not consistently get better than 40Kbps upstream and 100Kbps downstream.  I am talking consistent, constant steady, no drops, no rises, service.....  Note: if you are NOT using the DD-WRT software that shows this in REAL TIME, 24 X 7 or you are not running a commercial router (<i>$600 - $2000 per</i>), whose software will show this in real time; you HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW.  Of course they do NOT shape, throttle the Speed Test, hint, hint.

</p><p>And years after its proven beyond any doubt that a hardware firewall/router is superior to software running on a PC; they are suggesting that this type of software router is gaining market share or becoming more popular, I certainly hope not as that means people are getting dumber....I do not believe that.  I do not want to believe that people are getting dumber....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
It 's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked .
It 's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the Internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time .
And * nix computers , while better , can still be vulnerable.You said it .
I still get burned up with the Cable company when they want me to jump through hoops to troubleshoot my cable connection , because they are artificially restricting my access via software and do not want to admit that simple fact , and the first thing they want you to do is pull out/turn off your firewall/router ( hardware device ) or shutdown your router software only solution and connect directly up to their cable modem .
Makes me want to SCREAM and churn !
Even more offensive when you did not have any problems for years , all the same hardware and software until they ( the cable company ) , in their infinite wisdom , rolled out new software to your area to enhance/improve your service , right , not .
( Bandwidth Shaping , throttling , Deep Packet Inspection , who knows what ) ; all you know is they installed something new between you and the Internet and the end result is your service is now providing you a fraction of the bandwidth you use to get .
And before , you would have been better off with DSL instead of a Cable modem from a bandwidth perspective specifically .
Now even more so .
Does DSL throttle back service , for instance if you are told that they can provide 384K up and 1.5Mbps down , do you get 100 \ % of that or only a fraction ?
Please no replies that are ONLY OPINIONS , someone with the DD-WRT software running on a hardware firewall/router that has DSL service ( anyone ) , please check your status / bandwidth windows and tell me what you see happening as I need to know if I would be better off to switch away from cable .
( I.e my cable Speed test is phenomenal ; their service marketing promise is good ( up to 8MB , 10MB , 12MB or 14MPB ) also ; however the reality sucks .
I do not consistently get better than 40Kbps upstream and 100Kbps downstream .
I am talking consistent , constant steady , no drops , no rises , service..... Note : if you are NOT using the DD-WRT software that shows this in REAL TIME , 24 X 7 or you are not running a commercial router ( $ 600 - $ 2000 per ) , whose software will show this in real time ; you HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW .
Of course they do NOT shape , throttle the Speed Test , hint , hint .
And years after its proven beyond any doubt that a hardware firewall/router is superior to software running on a PC ; they are suggesting that this type of software router is gaining market share or becoming more popular , I certainly hope not as that means people are getting dumber....I do not believe that .
I do not want to believe that people are getting dumber... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
It's because we want to isolate functionality to minimize the risk of getting hacked.
It's well known that connecting a Windows computer directly to the Internet will result in it getting P0wned in almost no time.
And *nix computers, while better, can still be vulnerable.You said it.
I still get burned up with the Cable company when they want me to jump through hoops to troubleshoot my cable connection, because they are artificially restricting my access via software and do not want to admit that simple fact, and the first thing they want you to do is pull out/turn off your firewall/router (hardware device) or  shutdown your router software only solution and connect directly up to their cable modem.
Makes me want to SCREAM and churn!
Even more offensive when you did not have any problems for years, all the same hardware and software until they (the cable company), in their infinite wisdom, rolled out new software to your area to enhance/improve your service, right, not.
(Bandwidth Shaping, throttling, Deep Packet Inspection, who knows what); all you know is they installed something new between you and the Internet and the end result is your service is now providing you a fraction of the bandwidth you use to get.
And before, you would have been better off with DSL instead of a Cable modem from a bandwidth perspective specifically.
Now even more so.
Does DSL throttle back service, for instance if you are told that they can provide 384K up and 1.5Mbps down, do you get 100\% of that or only a fraction?
Please no replies that are ONLY OPINIONS, someone with the DD-WRT software running on a hardware firewall/router that has DSL service (anyone), please check your status / bandwidth windows and tell me what you see happening as I need to know if I would be better off to switch away from cable.
(I.e my cable Speed test is phenomenal; their service marketing promise is good (up to 8MB, 10MB, 12MB or 14MPB) also; however the reality sucks.
I do not consistently get better than 40Kbps upstream and 100Kbps downstream.
I am talking consistent, constant steady, no drops, no rises, service.....  Note: if you are NOT using the DD-WRT software that shows this in REAL TIME, 24 X 7 or you are not running a commercial router ($600 - $2000 per), whose software will show this in real time; you HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW.
Of course they do NOT shape, throttle the Speed Test, hint, hint.
And years after its proven beyond any doubt that a hardware firewall/router is superior to software running on a PC; they are suggesting that this type of software router is gaining market share or becoming more popular, I certainly hope not as that means people are getting dumber....I do not believe that.
I do not want to believe that people are getting dumber....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900791</id>
	<title>Software radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want a fully tunable software radio receiver AND transmitter ala <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU\_Radio" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU\_Radio</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>It would be so cool to be able to do ham radio or CB radio with just a computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want a fully tunable software radio receiver AND transmitter ala http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU \ _Radio [ wikipedia.org ] It would be so cool to be able to do ham radio or CB radio with just a computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want a fully tunable software radio receiver AND transmitter ala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU\_Radio [wikipedia.org]It would be so cool to be able to do ham radio or CB radio with just a computer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box. Then one day I realized I was using about $50/yr in electricity just so I could have a "free" replacement for a $59.99 router.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box .
Then one day I realized I was using about $ 50/yr in electricity just so I could have a " free " replacement for a $ 59.99 router .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to run FreeSCO on an old P-133 box.
Then one day I realized I was using about $50/yr in electricity just so I could have a "free" replacement for a $59.99 router.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901481</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>BuddaLicious</author>
	<datestamp>1256762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your old P-133 is probably hosting a 180-200w power supply at max.
Consider the actual power use of a machine like this is closer to 30-40w of real power use, and compares a little more favorably with the $60 store router.

Granted the dedicated device is lower power, but also weaker.
An old P-133 can be maxed out with memory, and have a nice reliable used HD placed in it.
Not only does this actually open the OPTION of keeping syslogs
(this is not a real option for most net toasters, as most have to send the syslog off to another dedicated server.)
You can also do much stronger firewall rules, packet inspection etc, that the net boxes aren't capable of.

Even further the net toaster routers seem to be much less secure than say a box running Comixwall or OpenBSD with PF.

I would say your current solution is much better, if you have $60 to burn drop a SSD drive in an old PC for a great performing router:
16 GB SSD PATA drives are can be had from newegg for less than $50.
Not only better speed, but you can probably kill get away with killing the case fans, and then the CPU fan is the only noise.
(on P133 this is pretty quite - IF there is a fan even, and not just a heatsink)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your old P-133 is probably hosting a 180-200w power supply at max .
Consider the actual power use of a machine like this is closer to 30-40w of real power use , and compares a little more favorably with the $ 60 store router .
Granted the dedicated device is lower power , but also weaker .
An old P-133 can be maxed out with memory , and have a nice reliable used HD placed in it .
Not only does this actually open the OPTION of keeping syslogs ( this is not a real option for most net toasters , as most have to send the syslog off to another dedicated server .
) You can also do much stronger firewall rules , packet inspection etc , that the net boxes are n't capable of .
Even further the net toaster routers seem to be much less secure than say a box running Comixwall or OpenBSD with PF .
I would say your current solution is much better , if you have $ 60 to burn drop a SSD drive in an old PC for a great performing router : 16 GB SSD PATA drives are can be had from newegg for less than $ 50 .
Not only better speed , but you can probably kill get away with killing the case fans , and then the CPU fan is the only noise .
( on P133 this is pretty quite - IF there is a fan even , and not just a heatsink )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your old P-133 is probably hosting a 180-200w power supply at max.
Consider the actual power use of a machine like this is closer to 30-40w of real power use, and compares a little more favorably with the $60 store router.
Granted the dedicated device is lower power, but also weaker.
An old P-133 can be maxed out with memory, and have a nice reliable used HD placed in it.
Not only does this actually open the OPTION of keeping syslogs
(this is not a real option for most net toasters, as most have to send the syslog off to another dedicated server.
)
You can also do much stronger firewall rules, packet inspection etc, that the net boxes aren't capable of.
Even further the net toaster routers seem to be much less secure than say a box running Comixwall or OpenBSD with PF.
I would say your current solution is much better, if you have $60 to burn drop a SSD drive in an old PC for a great performing router:
16 GB SSD PATA drives are can be had from newegg for less than $50.
Not only better speed, but you can probably kill get away with killing the case fans, and then the CPU fan is the only noise.
(on P133 this is pretty quite - IF there is a fan even, and not just a heatsink)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901275</id>
	<title>MiFi sucks; Cellular+Wifi for the win.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tether my laptop to my Android phone via wifi.  The advantage is that I don't need to carry a cellular modem for my laptop, have a separate data plan, or swap sim cards (on GSM networks).  The fact that someone else can use the connection is an additional bonus.  I used to have a separate data plan and 3G modem, and I'd even share this connection via iptables/NAT from my Linux laptop.  It worked, yes, but it is much better to just let my phone handle this now.</p><p>As for a MiFi, this is different in that you're using a special device, losing the advantage of leveraging your phone hardware, and ultimately pay more.  The advantage being that you're not breaking your service agreement, have a carrier-supported solution, and you don't need to root your phone.  With all of the limitations of the MiFi, it is not significantly better than using a cellular modem.</p><p>Personally, I hope that carriers start to loosen up and allow (wifi) tethering, because this really provides the best of all worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tether my laptop to my Android phone via wifi .
The advantage is that I do n't need to carry a cellular modem for my laptop , have a separate data plan , or swap sim cards ( on GSM networks ) .
The fact that someone else can use the connection is an additional bonus .
I used to have a separate data plan and 3G modem , and I 'd even share this connection via iptables/NAT from my Linux laptop .
It worked , yes , but it is much better to just let my phone handle this now.As for a MiFi , this is different in that you 're using a special device , losing the advantage of leveraging your phone hardware , and ultimately pay more .
The advantage being that you 're not breaking your service agreement , have a carrier-supported solution , and you do n't need to root your phone .
With all of the limitations of the MiFi , it is not significantly better than using a cellular modem.Personally , I hope that carriers start to loosen up and allow ( wifi ) tethering , because this really provides the best of all worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tether my laptop to my Android phone via wifi.
The advantage is that I don't need to carry a cellular modem for my laptop, have a separate data plan, or swap sim cards (on GSM networks).
The fact that someone else can use the connection is an additional bonus.
I used to have a separate data plan and 3G modem, and I'd even share this connection via iptables/NAT from my Linux laptop.
It worked, yes, but it is much better to just let my phone handle this now.As for a MiFi, this is different in that you're using a special device, losing the advantage of leveraging your phone hardware, and ultimately pay more.
The advantage being that you're not breaking your service agreement, have a carrier-supported solution, and you don't need to root your phone.
With all of the limitations of the MiFi, it is not significantly better than using a cellular modem.Personally, I hope that carriers start to loosen up and allow (wifi) tethering, because this really provides the best of all worlds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902061</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1256721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell did this get modded up?  NAT works fine for the vast majority of things people do.. \\</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell did this get modded up ?
NAT works fine for the vast majority of things people do.. \ \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell did this get modded up?
NAT works fine for the vast majority of things people do.. \\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are actually changes in Windows 7 that help with this. <a href="http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090516/windows-7-native-virtual-wifi-technology-microsoft-research/" title="istartedsomething.com">WiFi virtualization</a> [istartedsomething.com] was added to the Windows 7 kernel allowing you to run two WiFi connections from the same hardware adapter. So you could put a PC in range of a normal access point and then share the connection by creating an access point on the second virtual adapater. With previous versions of Windows, you would need two hardware adapters, or you would be limited to sharing a LAN connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are actually changes in Windows 7 that help with this .
WiFi virtualization [ istartedsomething.com ] was added to the Windows 7 kernel allowing you to run two WiFi connections from the same hardware adapter .
So you could put a PC in range of a normal access point and then share the connection by creating an access point on the second virtual adapater .
With previous versions of Windows , you would need two hardware adapters , or you would be limited to sharing a LAN connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are actually changes in Windows 7 that help with this.
WiFi virtualization [istartedsomething.com] was added to the Windows 7 kernel allowing you to run two WiFi connections from the same hardware adapter.
So you could put a PC in range of a normal access point and then share the connection by creating an access point on the second virtual adapater.
With previous versions of Windows, you would need two hardware adapters, or you would be limited to sharing a LAN connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901373</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>tom17</author>
	<datestamp>1256761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just play 'I Spy' and *interact* with your kids.
<br> <br>
Tom...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just play 'I Spy ' and * interact * with your kids .
Tom.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just play 'I Spy' and *interact* with your kids.
Tom...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906437</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't want a mini hotspot in my vehicle unless I can configure it with at least WPA2, preferably with a mini RADIUS server, keys, and WPA2-Enterprise.  I really don't want my vehicle becoming a launch point for attacks on the Internet from some party who is able to access the hotspot when the vehicle is parked, or perhaps a real fast attack of vehicles with open Wi-Fi as they pass by.  (With a high gain antenna and bumper to bumper traffic, a blackhat would have more than a couple minutes to get on the vehicle's wi-fi and start some script attacks until the vehicle moves out of range, and another vehicle that is open moves in.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't want a mini hotspot in my vehicle unless I can configure it with at least WPA2 , preferably with a mini RADIUS server , keys , and WPA2-Enterprise .
I really do n't want my vehicle becoming a launch point for attacks on the Internet from some party who is able to access the hotspot when the vehicle is parked , or perhaps a real fast attack of vehicles with open Wi-Fi as they pass by .
( With a high gain antenna and bumper to bumper traffic , a blackhat would have more than a couple minutes to get on the vehicle 's wi-fi and start some script attacks until the vehicle moves out of range , and another vehicle that is open moves in .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't want a mini hotspot in my vehicle unless I can configure it with at least WPA2, preferably with a mini RADIUS server, keys, and WPA2-Enterprise.
I really don't want my vehicle becoming a launch point for attacks on the Internet from some party who is able to access the hotspot when the vehicle is parked, or perhaps a real fast attack of vehicles with open Wi-Fi as they pass by.
(With a high gain antenna and bumper to bumper traffic, a blackhat would have more than a couple minutes to get on the vehicle's wi-fi and start some script attacks until the vehicle moves out of range, and another vehicle that is open moves in.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905669</id>
	<title>Re:not even much of a present</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, I don't know about in the US, but (here in Japan, at least), the best phone providers aren't necessarily the best 3G providers.  Most phones top out at 3.8 or 7.2 Mbps, while the dedicated cards do 21 Mbps down and 5.8 up - so you are certainly better off with the router thing than hacking up a connection to your phone.  (Do the phones you mentioned even have base-station mode, or is it just Ad-Hoc?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I do n't know about in the US , but ( here in Japan , at least ) , the best phone providers are n't necessarily the best 3G providers .
Most phones top out at 3.8 or 7.2 Mbps , while the dedicated cards do 21 Mbps down and 5.8 up - so you are certainly better off with the router thing than hacking up a connection to your phone .
( Do the phones you mentioned even have base-station mode , or is it just Ad-Hoc ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I don't know about in the US, but (here in Japan, at least), the best phone providers aren't necessarily the best 3G providers.
Most phones top out at 3.8 or 7.2 Mbps, while the dedicated cards do 21 Mbps down and 5.8 up - so you are certainly better off with the router thing than hacking up a connection to your phone.
(Do the phones you mentioned even have base-station mode, or is it just Ad-Hoc?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903835</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>TimothyDavis</author>
	<datestamp>1256730960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My group does onsite visits to customer facilities.  Often these locations do not have a network for us to tether into - which is why the MiFi is perfect for us.  The group (under 5) can all connect out on my MiFi device and get very reasonable speed network access.  This allows us all to stay on email, or RAS back into our corporate network.  <br> <br>
Note:  We only need one device for this - and not an telco account for every user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My group does onsite visits to customer facilities .
Often these locations do not have a network for us to tether into - which is why the MiFi is perfect for us .
The group ( under 5 ) can all connect out on my MiFi device and get very reasonable speed network access .
This allows us all to stay on email , or RAS back into our corporate network .
Note : We only need one device for this - and not an telco account for every user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My group does onsite visits to customer facilities.
Often these locations do not have a network for us to tether into - which is why the MiFi is perfect for us.
The group (under 5) can all connect out on my MiFi device and get very reasonable speed network access.
This allows us all to stay on email, or RAS back into our corporate network.
Note:  We only need one device for this - and not an telco account for every user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901175</id>
	<title>WMWiFiRouter FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it amusing that Verizon is selling this MiFi, then charging you a monthly service fee to use it, since for $30 bucks one time you can load WMWiFiRouter software onto any Windows Mobile device and have it do the same, without paying $50 a month for the MiFi dataplan, OR a $15/month tethering fee (double score! No cable or extra fee), paying $200 for the privilege of lugging around an extra device. Sure I may not be able to take calls and use the Interwebs, but I didn't want to take those calls in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amusing that Verizon is selling this MiFi , then charging you a monthly service fee to use it , since for $ 30 bucks one time you can load WMWiFiRouter software onto any Windows Mobile device and have it do the same , without paying $ 50 a month for the MiFi dataplan , OR a $ 15/month tethering fee ( double score !
No cable or extra fee ) , paying $ 200 for the privilege of lugging around an extra device .
Sure I may not be able to take calls and use the Interwebs , but I did n't want to take those calls in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amusing that Verizon is selling this MiFi, then charging you a monthly service fee to use it, since for $30 bucks one time you can load WMWiFiRouter software onto any Windows Mobile device and have it do the same, without paying $50 a month for the MiFi dataplan, OR a $15/month tethering fee (double score!
No cable or extra fee), paying $200 for the privilege of lugging around an extra device.
Sure I may not be able to take calls and use the Interwebs, but I didn't want to take those calls in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901143</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is correct.</p><p>meanwhile, there is *tons* of software to allow PC's to be routers, and such has existed for a long time. I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE, and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks. Why is this being touted as new?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is correct.meanwhile , there is * tons * of software to allow PC 's to be routers , and such has existed for a long time .
I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE , and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks .
Why is this being touted as new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is correct.meanwhile, there is *tons* of software to allow PC's to be routers, and such has existed for a long time.
I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE, and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks.
Why is this being touted as new?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901955</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>RCGodward</author>
	<datestamp>1256721060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not build the NAT router into the PC? I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires. Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.</p></div><p>nVidia tried this.  I can't remember the trade name, but I remember using it on my nForce 4 machine and hating it.  It killed network speeds, it was nearly impossible to open ports, and it was unstable as hell.  I made it a point never to install it again.  Maybe somebody else could do it right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not build the NAT router into the PC ?
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires .
Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.nVidia tried this .
I ca n't remember the trade name , but I remember using it on my nForce 4 machine and hating it .
It killed network speeds , it was nearly impossible to open ports , and it was unstable as hell .
I made it a point never to install it again .
Maybe somebody else could do it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not build the NAT router into the PC?
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires.
Put the router AND the hardware firewall inside the PC.nVidia tried this.
I can't remember the trade name, but I remember using it on my nForce 4 machine and hating it.
It killed network speeds, it was nearly impossible to open ports, and it was unstable as hell.
I made it a point never to install it again.
Maybe somebody else could do it right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900957</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>xianthax</author>
	<datestamp>1256759700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no one uses PC's as routers because no one in their right mind would plug a windows box directly into an open Internet connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no one uses PC 's as routers because no one in their right mind would plug a windows box directly into an open Internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one uses PC's as routers because no one in their right mind would plug a windows box directly into an open Internet connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901479</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>xianthax</author>
	<datestamp>1256762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting in theory, but in practice this thing is just switching the the card to various networks quickly and hiding the fact its doing so.  Given the amount of trouble that exists today with wifi card and AP compatibility i think your just shooting yourself in the foot by trying to switch around inside the connection time out of the AP.</p><p>also from the article you linked...</p><p>"In Windows 7, you are limited to exactly one virtual adapter."</p><p>which means its useless today.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting in theory , but in practice this thing is just switching the the card to various networks quickly and hiding the fact its doing so .
Given the amount of trouble that exists today with wifi card and AP compatibility i think your just shooting yourself in the foot by trying to switch around inside the connection time out of the AP.also from the article you linked... " In Windows 7 , you are limited to exactly one virtual adapter .
" which means its useless today .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting in theory, but in practice this thing is just switching the the card to various networks quickly and hiding the fact its doing so.
Given the amount of trouble that exists today with wifi card and AP compatibility i think your just shooting yourself in the foot by trying to switch around inside the connection time out of the AP.also from the article you linked..."In Windows 7, you are limited to exactly one virtual adapter.
"which means its useless today.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1256759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see exactly one use for the device.</p><p>Assume for a moment that we have a family - a mother, a father, two and a half kids, and the dog. We're on a vacation (as opposed to staycation), and we're driving to [popular tourist destination] because it's cheaper than flying, even if it takes 19 hours of non-stop driving to get there.</p><p>This family has a netbook for the children in the backseat to play their little saved games (perhaps you stuck an emulator on there and are letting them get acquainted with the golden age of gaming). The father has a mobile broadband card that is plugged into his laptop so that he can get at email.</p><p>The kids get bored eventually of playing whatever game it is (Earthbound, perhaps), and want to log on to neopets to check on their zafara and their shoyru. You're at hour 8 of the drive.</p><p>Decision time!<br>Do you:<br>* Hand dad's much more expensive laptop to the kids in the back seat and hope they don't screw it up?<br>* Drop the mobile broadband card into a device designed to share the connection, and connect the kids this way over their netbook?<br>* Powder your hands and recite the Pimp's Prayer, then reach back and smack a bottom or two, telling them to settle down and keep playing those emulated games you got them, even though they [barely understand how to play them|are bored by your choice of games]?</p><p>I'd not hand the kids dad's laptop. That's just a no-go. That's why they got the netbook, so they can stay off the big computer.<br>It's a little hard to reach back and slap that kid on his ass when you're doing 70.<br>It's easiest to tell the wifey to drop the card into the mobile router and share the connection. Maybe she'll stop paying as much attention to Facebook and actually, y'know... talk to you while you're driving.</p><p>(there are other scenarios that are similar to this, as well.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see exactly one use for the device.Assume for a moment that we have a family - a mother , a father , two and a half kids , and the dog .
We 're on a vacation ( as opposed to staycation ) , and we 're driving to [ popular tourist destination ] because it 's cheaper than flying , even if it takes 19 hours of non-stop driving to get there.This family has a netbook for the children in the backseat to play their little saved games ( perhaps you stuck an emulator on there and are letting them get acquainted with the golden age of gaming ) .
The father has a mobile broadband card that is plugged into his laptop so that he can get at email.The kids get bored eventually of playing whatever game it is ( Earthbound , perhaps ) , and want to log on to neopets to check on their zafara and their shoyru .
You 're at hour 8 of the drive.Decision time ! Do you : * Hand dad 's much more expensive laptop to the kids in the back seat and hope they do n't screw it up ?
* Drop the mobile broadband card into a device designed to share the connection , and connect the kids this way over their netbook ?
* Powder your hands and recite the Pimp 's Prayer , then reach back and smack a bottom or two , telling them to settle down and keep playing those emulated games you got them , even though they [ barely understand how to play them | are bored by your choice of games ] ? I 'd not hand the kids dad 's laptop .
That 's just a no-go .
That 's why they got the netbook , so they can stay off the big computer.It 's a little hard to reach back and slap that kid on his ass when you 're doing 70.It 's easiest to tell the wifey to drop the card into the mobile router and share the connection .
Maybe she 'll stop paying as much attention to Facebook and actually , y'know... talk to you while you 're driving .
( there are other scenarios that are similar to this , as well .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see exactly one use for the device.Assume for a moment that we have a family - a mother, a father, two and a half kids, and the dog.
We're on a vacation (as opposed to staycation), and we're driving to [popular tourist destination] because it's cheaper than flying, even if it takes 19 hours of non-stop driving to get there.This family has a netbook for the children in the backseat to play their little saved games (perhaps you stuck an emulator on there and are letting them get acquainted with the golden age of gaming).
The father has a mobile broadband card that is plugged into his laptop so that he can get at email.The kids get bored eventually of playing whatever game it is (Earthbound, perhaps), and want to log on to neopets to check on their zafara and their shoyru.
You're at hour 8 of the drive.Decision time!Do you:* Hand dad's much more expensive laptop to the kids in the back seat and hope they don't screw it up?
* Drop the mobile broadband card into a device designed to share the connection, and connect the kids this way over their netbook?
* Powder your hands and recite the Pimp's Prayer, then reach back and smack a bottom or two, telling them to settle down and keep playing those emulated games you got them, even though they [barely understand how to play them|are bored by your choice of games]?I'd not hand the kids dad's laptop.
That's just a no-go.
That's why they got the netbook, so they can stay off the big computer.It's a little hard to reach back and slap that kid on his ass when you're doing 70.It's easiest to tell the wifey to drop the card into the mobile router and share the connection.
Maybe she'll stop paying as much attention to Facebook and actually, y'know... talk to you while you're driving.
(there are other scenarios that are similar to this, as well.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901633</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, actually, is the function of firewalls.</p><p>NAT is a kludge that broke the Internet. Many great applications have died or never taken off because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , actually , is the function of firewalls.NAT is a kludge that broke the Internet .
Many great applications have died or never taken off because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, actually, is the function of firewalls.NAT is a kludge that broke the Internet.
Many great applications have died or never taken off because of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901849</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently thinking about putting together an Atom 330 based PC for this purpose.  It'll use about as much power as a CFL, so no problem leaving it on 24/7.  Plus it's plenty powerful enough to do some web browsing and play some music at the same time.  Yeah, it'll cost a little more than a router, but it can do a lot more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently thinking about putting together an Atom 330 based PC for this purpose .
It 'll use about as much power as a CFL , so no problem leaving it on 24/7 .
Plus it 's plenty powerful enough to do some web browsing and play some music at the same time .
Yeah , it 'll cost a little more than a router , but it can do a lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently thinking about putting together an Atom 330 based PC for this purpose.
It'll use about as much power as a CFL, so no problem leaving it on 24/7.
Plus it's plenty powerful enough to do some web browsing and play some music at the same time.
Yeah, it'll cost a little more than a router, but it can do a lot more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003</id>
	<title>Re:NAT is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No, NAT is not a good thing, it breaks end-to-end connectivity.   Many protocols do not work with NAT.
And the superficial security NAT might appear to have is easily defeated through various techniques.
</p><p>
Security is a good thing,  this is provided by true stateful firewalls,  which is orthogonal to NAT.
</p><p>
In any case, these aren't the reasons people utilize routers.
</p><p>
Windows has had Internet Connection sharing for a long time,  but we don't see broadband users utilizing ICS.
</p><p>
The more obvious reason is:  convenience.
Followed by energy efficiency.
</p><p>
Convenience  meaning you don't have to keep your computer awake all the time to route traffic.   It spares you the inconvenience of powering it up to make your other networked PCs work.
</p><p>
Also, a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC, generally won't blue screen or get viruses.
</p><p>
And it consumes less electricity, which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time  for the convenience of other users.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , NAT is not a good thing , it breaks end-to-end connectivity .
Many protocols do not work with NAT .
And the superficial security NAT might appear to have is easily defeated through various techniques .
Security is a good thing , this is provided by true stateful firewalls , which is orthogonal to NAT .
In any case , these are n't the reasons people utilize routers .
Windows has had Internet Connection sharing for a long time , but we do n't see broadband users utilizing ICS .
The more obvious reason is : convenience .
Followed by energy efficiency .
Convenience meaning you do n't have to keep your computer awake all the time to route traffic .
It spares you the inconvenience of powering it up to make your other networked PCs work .
Also , a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC , generally wo n't blue screen or get viruses .
And it consumes less electricity , which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time for the convenience of other users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No, NAT is not a good thing, it breaks end-to-end connectivity.
Many protocols do not work with NAT.
And the superficial security NAT might appear to have is easily defeated through various techniques.
Security is a good thing,  this is provided by true stateful firewalls,  which is orthogonal to NAT.
In any case, these aren't the reasons people utilize routers.
Windows has had Internet Connection sharing for a long time,  but we don't see broadband users utilizing ICS.
The more obvious reason is:  convenience.
Followed by energy efficiency.
Convenience  meaning you don't have to keep your computer awake all the time to route traffic.
It spares you the inconvenience of powering it up to make your other networked PCs work.
Also, a dedicated routing device is more reliable than a PC, generally won't blue screen or get viruses.
And it consumes less electricity, which is cheaper than leaving a PC on all the time  for the convenience of other users.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901655</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>BuddaLicious</author>
	<datestamp>1256763000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ATTENTION PC does not = Windows
PC (personal computer) is great as a router, especially when running OpenBSD, ComixWall, or even Linux or others.
You can actaully host the syslog files on the computer, and do neat things like packet inspection, firewall rules, and more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ATTENTION PC does not = Windows PC ( personal computer ) is great as a router , especially when running OpenBSD , ComixWall , or even Linux or others .
You can actaully host the syslog files on the computer , and do neat things like packet inspection , firewall rules , and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATTENTION PC does not = Windows
PC (personal computer) is great as a router, especially when running OpenBSD, ComixWall, or even Linux or others.
You can actaully host the syslog files on the computer, and do neat things like packet inspection, firewall rules, and more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901085</id>
	<title>Carpool</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about in a car pool where a single device can give all the car pool occupants WiFi to work with?  They could split the cost just like they do gas.</p><p>Or just sharing a connection with any small group, that is the strength - yes the laptop can do this, but this device could share even when no-one had laptops but smaller mobile devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about in a car pool where a single device can give all the car pool occupants WiFi to work with ?
They could split the cost just like they do gas.Or just sharing a connection with any small group , that is the strength - yes the laptop can do this , but this device could share even when no-one had laptops but smaller mobile devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about in a car pool where a single device can give all the car pool occupants WiFi to work with?
They could split the cost just like they do gas.Or just sharing a connection with any small group, that is the strength - yes the laptop can do this, but this device could share even when no-one had laptops but smaller mobile devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901017</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does have its uses, I have an xp computer sitting next to my tv acting as both a wireless accesspoint for my tv/game consoles as well as giving the tv enhanced internet capabilities (over its generaic youtube access) and i did this for a minor fraction of the cost it would have taken me to get a dedicated access point system working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does have its uses , I have an xp computer sitting next to my tv acting as both a wireless accesspoint for my tv/game consoles as well as giving the tv enhanced internet capabilities ( over its generaic youtube access ) and i did this for a minor fraction of the cost it would have taken me to get a dedicated access point system working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does have its uses, I have an xp computer sitting next to my tv acting as both a wireless accesspoint for my tv/game consoles as well as giving the tv enhanced internet capabilities (over its generaic youtube access) and i did this for a minor fraction of the cost it would have taken me to get a dedicated access point system working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900877</id>
	<title>Re:I've never really understood this device</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1256759280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're in a group, it'd be handy if you didn't all have connections already.  Also, I could see it be handy if you had a camera with one of those SD cards that uses wifi to transmit photos saved to network storage.</p><p>Are there any standalone(not cellular) battery-powered routers?  I haven't gone on a family car trip in ages, but if I did, I'd want some networking:)</p><p>Plus, one of the holy grails of mesh networking is a cheap battery powered wifi router.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're in a group , it 'd be handy if you did n't all have connections already .
Also , I could see it be handy if you had a camera with one of those SD cards that uses wifi to transmit photos saved to network storage.Are there any standalone ( not cellular ) battery-powered routers ?
I have n't gone on a family car trip in ages , but if I did , I 'd want some networking : ) Plus , one of the holy grails of mesh networking is a cheap battery powered wifi router .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're in a group, it'd be handy if you didn't all have connections already.
Also, I could see it be handy if you had a camera with one of those SD cards that uses wifi to transmit photos saved to network storage.Are there any standalone(not cellular) battery-powered routers?
I haven't gone on a family car trip in ages, but if I did, I'd want some networking:)Plus, one of the holy grails of mesh networking is a cheap battery powered wifi router.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906191</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7? More like XP. And OS X. And Linux. A</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's usually much more than just routing. It's an intelligent firewall, name server, intrusion-detection-system, honeypot, a printing and file server, a p2p client (and perhaps server), a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed (very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet, while traveling), a development box (if you're developer), a multimedia device (with remote control, it plays internet radio streams for example), etc, etc, etc. All in nice compartiments, secured against each other.</p><p>Ok, that may be just me. But I should publish a disk image for general usage. It only that weren't so much work. (The system obviously is heavily customized for me.)</p><p>But it now runs since 2003/4, without any need for a shutdown, except when the hardware fails, (in which case I usually update the kernel too). The same OS survived 3 mainboards, 4 PSUs, 3 CPUs, and 7 hard disks. I did not have to change anything, except for one complete architecture change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's usually much more than just routing .
It 's an intelligent firewall , name server , intrusion-detection-system , honeypot , a printing and file server , a p2p client ( and perhaps server ) , a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed ( very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet , while traveling ) , a development box ( if you 're developer ) , a multimedia device ( with remote control , it plays internet radio streams for example ) , etc , etc , etc .
All in nice compartiments , secured against each other.Ok , that may be just me .
But I should publish a disk image for general usage .
It only that were n't so much work .
( The system obviously is heavily customized for me .
) But it now runs since 2003/4 , without any need for a shutdown , except when the hardware fails , ( in which case I usually update the kernel too ) .
The same OS survived 3 mainboards , 4 PSUs , 3 CPUs , and 7 hard disks .
I did not have to change anything , except for one complete architecture change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's usually much more than just routing.
It's an intelligent firewall, name server, intrusion-detection-system, honeypot, a printing and file server, a p2p client (and perhaps server), a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed (very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet, while traveling), a development box (if you're developer), a multimedia device (with remote control, it plays internet radio streams for example), etc, etc, etc.
All in nice compartiments, secured against each other.Ok, that may be just me.
But I should publish a disk image for general usage.
It only that weren't so much work.
(The system obviously is heavily customized for me.
)But it now runs since 2003/4, without any need for a shutdown, except when the hardware fails, (in which case I usually update the kernel too).
The same OS survived 3 mainboards, 4 PSUs, 3 CPUs, and 7 hard disks.
I did not have to change anything, except for one complete architecture change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29911729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29904353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29919669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29908657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1758226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29911729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901373
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29919669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901955
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902223
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29902061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29908657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29904353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29900957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29907039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29906291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29903163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1758226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29901293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1758226.29905669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
