<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_1953223</id>
	<title>Sequoia To Publish Source Code For Voting Machines</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256717220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cecille writes <i>"Voting machine maker Sequoia announced on Tuesday that they <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/sequoia/">plan to release the source code for their new optical-scan voting machine</a>.  The source code will be released in November for public review.  The company claims the announcement is unrelated to the <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/2236252/Open-Source-Voting-Software-Concept-Released">recent release of the source code</a> for a prototype voting machine by the <a href="http://osdv.org/">Open Source Digital Voting Foundation</a>.  According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cecille writes " Voting machine maker Sequoia announced on Tuesday that they plan to release the source code for their new optical-scan voting machine .
The source code will be released in November for public review .
The company claims the announcement is unrelated to the recent release of the source code for a prototype voting machine by the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation .
According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cecille writes "Voting machine maker Sequoia announced on Tuesday that they plan to release the source code for their new optical-scan voting machine.
The source code will be released in November for public review.
The company claims the announcement is unrelated to the recent release of the source code for a prototype voting machine by the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation.
According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902163</id>
	<title>It's for a "new system"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the news release at (http://www.sequoiavote.com/press.php?ID=85)
"Sequoia&rsquo;s Frontier Election System Source Code will be available for public download through the company&rsquo;s website beginning November 2009; System slated to enter the Election Assistance Commission&rsquo;s Federal Voting System Certification Program in mid-2010".

The Frontier system isn't event available as one of their products (from the product dropdown).</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the news release at ( http : //www.sequoiavote.com/press.php ? ID = 85 ) " Sequoia    s Frontier Election System Source Code will be available for public download through the company    s website beginning November 2009 ; System slated to enter the Election Assistance Commission    s Federal Voting System Certification Program in mid-2010 " .
The Frontier system is n't event available as one of their products ( from the product dropdown ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the news release at (http://www.sequoiavote.com/press.php?ID=85)
"Sequoia’s Frontier Election System Source Code will be available for public download through the company’s website beginning November 2009; System slated to enter the Election Assistance Commission’s Federal Voting System Certification Program in mid-2010".
The Frontier system isn't event available as one of their products (from the product dropdown).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29909075</id>
	<title>Tag it as...</title>
	<author>unixan</author>
	<datestamp>1256825640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>suddenoutbreakofcommonsense</htmltext>
<tokenext>suddenoutbreakofcommonsense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suddenoutbreakofcommonsense</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902547</id>
	<title>Re:plan to</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1256724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, I didn't even think about that part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , I did n't even think about that part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, I didn't even think about that part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903447</id>
	<title>Pesky flags!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256728560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Developers: Umm, yeah, sure, no problem... You know, we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [runs frantically back to computer and pounds away]</i></p><p>The ifElectionRiggedFlag is proving harder to remove than we thought. That sucker is everywhere. How about we just rename it to ifTesting and set it to false?...and lets rename the forceWinningCandidate and forceWinningParty strings to blank while we're at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers : Umm , yeah , sure , no problem... You know , we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [ runs frantically back to computer and pounds away ] The ifElectionRiggedFlag is proving harder to remove than we thought .
That sucker is everywhere .
How about we just rename it to ifTesting and set it to false ? ...and lets rename the forceWinningCandidate and forceWinningParty strings to blank while we 're at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers: Umm, yeah, sure, no problem... You know, we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [runs frantically back to computer and pounds away]The ifElectionRiggedFlag is proving harder to remove than we thought.
That sucker is everywhere.
How about we just rename it to ifTesting and set it to false?...and lets rename the forceWinningCandidate and forceWinningParty strings to blank while we're at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902725</id>
	<title>Re:Why a delay?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1256725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd guess it's worries about patents, partners, and other politically related things.</p></div><p>The solution for Sequoia is pretty simple, write the fancy vote counting machine as an exact emulator of a 1928 IBM 301 tabulating machine, then overclock the emulation a wee bit.  Nobody screws around with IBM's patent portfolio, and frankly an overclocked 301 is massive overkill for "counting votes".</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating\_machine" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating\_machine</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It is really a very elegant solution.  Admittedly, I will freaking fall out of my chair laughing if I download their source code and discover this is exactly what they did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd guess it 's worries about patents , partners , and other politically related things.The solution for Sequoia is pretty simple , write the fancy vote counting machine as an exact emulator of a 1928 IBM 301 tabulating machine , then overclock the emulation a wee bit .
Nobody screws around with IBM 's patent portfolio , and frankly an overclocked 301 is massive overkill for " counting votes " .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating \ _machine [ wikipedia.org ] It is really a very elegant solution .
Admittedly , I will freaking fall out of my chair laughing if I download their source code and discover this is exactly what they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd guess it's worries about patents, partners, and other politically related things.The solution for Sequoia is pretty simple, write the fancy vote counting machine as an exact emulator of a 1928 IBM 301 tabulating machine, then overclock the emulation a wee bit.
Nobody screws around with IBM's patent portfolio, and frankly an overclocked 301 is massive overkill for "counting votes".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating\_machine [wikipedia.org]It is really a very elegant solution.
Admittedly, I will freaking fall out of my chair laughing if I download their source code and discover this is exactly what they did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902397</id>
	<title>Re:plan to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256723160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>okay, so they "plan to"</p><p>yet, we don't have a release yet.</p><p>is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them?</p></div><p>Okay, so a few months back, Valve said they "plan to" release a sequel to Left 4 Dead.</p><p>Yet, we didn't have a release as soon as they said it.</p><p>Was that all just to incite fear in the population?  Should we ever trust Valve again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>okay , so they " plan to " yet , we do n't have a release yet.is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them ? Okay , so a few months back , Valve said they " plan to " release a sequel to Left 4 Dead.Yet , we did n't have a release as soon as they said it.Was that all just to incite fear in the population ?
Should we ever trust Valve again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>okay, so they "plan to"yet, we don't have a release yet.is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them?Okay, so a few months back, Valve said they "plan to" release a sequel to Left 4 Dead.Yet, we didn't have a release as soon as they said it.Was that all just to incite fear in the population?
Should we ever trust Valve again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903531</id>
	<title>Re:Virus Rights!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someday soon, viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement. This is how modern democracy will end.</p></div><p>Correction: This is how truly modern democracy will <em>begin!</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday soon , viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement .
This is how modern democracy will end.Correction : This is how truly modern democracy will begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday soon, viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement.
This is how modern democracy will end.Correction: This is how truly modern democracy will begin!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902337</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a couple of lines of code away from the Presidency!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a couple of lines of code away from the Presidency !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a couple of lines of code away from the Presidency!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935</id>
	<title>plan to</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1256720940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>okay, so they "plan to"</p><p>yet, we don't have a release yet.</p><p>is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>okay , so they " plan to " yet , we do n't have a release yet.is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>okay, so they "plan to"yet, we don't have a release yet.is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949</id>
	<title>The Robinson Voting Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many more times must I say this?</p><p>There is only ONE fraud proof, super cheap, instantly verifiable voting method - the Robinson Voting Method.</p><p>http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1</p><p>Why is anybody even wasting a moment on computerised voting? Or paper ballots? Two of the most obviously untrustworthy methods of voting ever invented. (Which is why they are in use.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many more times must I say this ? There is only ONE fraud proof , super cheap , instantly verifiable voting method - the Robinson Voting Method.http : //paul-robinson.us/index.php ? blog = 5&amp;title = the \ _robinson \ _method \ _a \ _really \ _simple \ _way \ _&amp;more = 1&amp;c = 1&amp;tb = 1&amp;pb = 1Why is anybody even wasting a moment on computerised voting ?
Or paper ballots ?
Two of the most obviously untrustworthy methods of voting ever invented .
( Which is why they are in use .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many more times must I say this?There is only ONE fraud proof, super cheap, instantly verifiable voting method - the Robinson Voting Method.http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1Why is anybody even wasting a moment on computerised voting?
Or paper ballots?
Two of the most obviously untrustworthy methods of voting ever invented.
(Which is why they are in use.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902943</id>
	<title>Re:I'd be more interested in this post</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1256726160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eats, shoots, and leaves.<blockquote><div><p>"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'""</p></div></blockquote><p>Security through obfuscation, and secrecy is not security.<br> <br>Obviously, they are saying that secrecy is useless, but one can obtain security via obfuscation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eats , shoots , and leaves .
" According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
' " " Security through obfuscation , and secrecy is not security .
Obviously , they are saying that secrecy is useless , but one can obtain security via obfuscation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eats, shoots, and leaves.
"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
'""Security through obfuscation, and secrecy is not security.
Obviously, they are saying that secrecy is useless, but one can obtain security via obfuscation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902661</id>
	<title>Apparently there are no dependable guarantees.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1256724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they release source code, it is possible that the code they actually use in their voting machines is different than the code they release. It's entirely their choice which software is run on any given day, is that correct? They can do updates whenever they want. Their are apparently no dependable guarantees.

<br> <br>In the past, Sequoia Voting has not seemed especially knowledgeable: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/study-sequoia-e-voting-machines-disturbingly-easy-to-hack.arsSequoiae-votingmachinesdisturbinglyeasytohack" title="arstechnica.com">Sequoia e-voting machines disturbingly easy to hack</a> [arstechnica.com]. Quote: <i>"Researchers from the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... were able to trivially circumvent the machine's physical security mechanisms and plant a hacked ROM that undetectably doctored the voting results."</i>

<br> <br>See this article, also, about a Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machine: <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/evidence-new-jersey-election-discrepancies" title="freedom-to-tinker.com">Evidence of New Jersey Election Discrepancies</a> [freedom-to-tinker.com].

<br> <br>Off topic: <a href="http://futurepower.net/flu/Flu\_Be\_skeptical\_about\_flu\_reports.html" title="futurepower.net">Be skeptical about flu reports.</a> [futurepower.net] The reports about flu were so flawed I took the time to write my own, using information from <i>The Atlantic</i> magazine and CBS News, among other sources.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they release source code , it is possible that the code they actually use in their voting machines is different than the code they release .
It 's entirely their choice which software is run on any given day , is that correct ?
They can do updates whenever they want .
Their are apparently no dependable guarantees .
In the past , Sequoia Voting has not seemed especially knowledgeable : Sequoia e-voting machines disturbingly easy to hack [ arstechnica.com ] .
Quote : " Researchers from the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy ... were able to trivially circumvent the machine 's physical security mechanisms and plant a hacked ROM that undetectably doctored the voting results .
" See this article , also , about a Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machine : Evidence of New Jersey Election Discrepancies [ freedom-to-tinker.com ] .
Off topic : Be skeptical about flu reports .
[ futurepower.net ] The reports about flu were so flawed I took the time to write my own , using information from The Atlantic magazine and CBS News , among other sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they release source code, it is possible that the code they actually use in their voting machines is different than the code they release.
It's entirely their choice which software is run on any given day, is that correct?
They can do updates whenever they want.
Their are apparently no dependable guarantees.
In the past, Sequoia Voting has not seemed especially knowledgeable: Sequoia e-voting machines disturbingly easy to hack [arstechnica.com].
Quote: "Researchers from the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy ... were able to trivially circumvent the machine's physical security mechanisms and plant a hacked ROM that undetectably doctored the voting results.
"

 See this article, also, about a Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machine: Evidence of New Jersey Election Discrepancies [freedom-to-tinker.com].
Off topic: Be skeptical about flu reports.
[futurepower.net] The reports about flu were so flawed I took the time to write my own, using information from The Atlantic magazine and CBS News, among other sources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902241</id>
	<title>You're still voting for crooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want real democracy, then work on <a href="http://www.metagovernment.org/" title="metagovernment.org" rel="nofollow">open sourcing the legislative process</a> [metagovernment.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want real democracy , then work on open sourcing the legislative process [ metagovernment.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want real democracy, then work on open sourcing the legislative process [metagovernment.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902409</id>
	<title>Whoa</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256723220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'</i> </p><p>Amazing. Did anyone notice whether there may have been an alien tentacle wrapped around the VP's throat manipulating his voice and his jaw?</p><p>That's such a turnabout (at least in publicly-stated position) that I may get whiplash trying to track.</p><p>Of course, words are cheap. We shall see how deeply this new-found wisdom is held.</p><p>Comprehensively and fairly open the subject source code for unfiltered public inspection, without explicit or implicit coercion against criticism, and respecting reasonable fair-use rights to quote and comment, and you will get full credit for your Damascus road conversion. Take one step towards intimidation, chilling of discourse, or SLAPP, and we will know that your glib sound-bite was just cheap empty talk.</p><p>And for as much or little as Nerd Rage counts, you will experience it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
' Amazing .
Did anyone notice whether there may have been an alien tentacle wrapped around the VP 's throat manipulating his voice and his jaw ? That 's such a turnabout ( at least in publicly-stated position ) that I may get whiplash trying to track.Of course , words are cheap .
We shall see how deeply this new-found wisdom is held.Comprehensively and fairly open the subject source code for unfiltered public inspection , without explicit or implicit coercion against criticism , and respecting reasonable fair-use rights to quote and comment , and you will get full credit for your Damascus road conversion .
Take one step towards intimidation , chilling of discourse , or SLAPP , and we will know that your glib sound-bite was just cheap empty talk.And for as much or little as Nerd Rage counts , you will experience it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
' Amazing.
Did anyone notice whether there may have been an alien tentacle wrapped around the VP's throat manipulating his voice and his jaw?That's such a turnabout (at least in publicly-stated position) that I may get whiplash trying to track.Of course, words are cheap.
We shall see how deeply this new-found wisdom is held.Comprehensively and fairly open the subject source code for unfiltered public inspection, without explicit or implicit coercion against criticism, and respecting reasonable fair-use rights to quote and comment, and you will get full credit for your Damascus road conversion.
Take one step towards intimidation, chilling of discourse, or SLAPP, and we will know that your glib sound-bite was just cheap empty talk.And for as much or little as Nerd Rage counts, you will experience it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902335</id>
	<title>Cynicism be damned...</title>
	<author>SoTerrified</author>
	<datestamp>1256722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But even a cynic like me sees this as a win.  Seriously, this is what we've been fighting for.  So in a world that manages to keep depressing me every time I turn on the news. I'm going to celebrate this little victory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even a cynic like me sees this as a win .
Seriously , this is what we 've been fighting for .
So in a world that manages to keep depressing me every time I turn on the news .
I 'm going to celebrate this little victory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even a cynic like me sees this as a win.
Seriously, this is what we've been fighting for.
So in a world that manages to keep depressing me every time I turn on the news.
I'm going to celebrate this little victory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125</id>
	<title>Programming Thinking...Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it once, and I will say it again, you can publish ALL the code you want, but</p><p>1. In the event of a recount, can I get repeatable results?</p><p>2. In the event of a "software bug" can I hold someone responsible, will they pay for the cost of a reelection?</p><p>3. In the event of a hardware failure, can I hold someone responsible, are there contingency plans, will someone pay the cost of a reelection?</p><p>It's a matter of trust, and what you can put behind your software.</p><p>Since this is software, and programmers, the answer to these questions is generally "no" and "nothing".</p><p>Elections don't wait for service packs, bug fixes, hot fixes, etc A flaw in your software could cause chaos.</p><p>Simple programmers can't go to jail for negligence, can't get sued for bugs, and can't put anything concrete behind their code.</p><p>I can just picture reading the election software EULA, "NO WARRANTY" , "NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE", "CONTAINS KNOWN DEFECTS"..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it once , and I will say it again , you can publish ALL the code you want , but1 .
In the event of a recount , can I get repeatable results ? 2 .
In the event of a " software bug " can I hold someone responsible , will they pay for the cost of a reelection ? 3 .
In the event of a hardware failure , can I hold someone responsible , are there contingency plans , will someone pay the cost of a reelection ? It 's a matter of trust , and what you can put behind your software.Since this is software , and programmers , the answer to these questions is generally " no " and " nothing " .Elections do n't wait for service packs , bug fixes , hot fixes , etc A flaw in your software could cause chaos.Simple programmers ca n't go to jail for negligence , ca n't get sued for bugs , and ca n't put anything concrete behind their code.I can just picture reading the election software EULA , " NO WARRANTY " , " NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE " , " CONTAINS KNOWN DEFECTS " . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it once, and I will say it again, you can publish ALL the code you want, but1.
In the event of a recount, can I get repeatable results?2.
In the event of a "software bug" can I hold someone responsible, will they pay for the cost of a reelection?3.
In the event of a hardware failure, can I hold someone responsible, are there contingency plans, will someone pay the cost of a reelection?It's a matter of trust, and what you can put behind your software.Since this is software, and programmers, the answer to these questions is generally "no" and "nothing".Elections don't wait for service packs, bug fixes, hot fixes, etc A flaw in your software could cause chaos.Simple programmers can't go to jail for negligence, can't get sued for bugs, and can't put anything concrete behind their code.I can just picture reading the election software EULA, "NO WARRANTY" , "NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE", "CONTAINS KNOWN DEFECTS"..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237</id>
	<title>Re:plan to</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1256722440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902483</id>
	<title>Re:The Robinson Voting Method</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1256723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear  Sir,</p><p>I have googled your ideas and only found forum posts similar to this one.</p><p>It does nothing for your credibility. Next time anchor your link or have a crawlable page if you want anyone to see what you have to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Sir,I have googled your ideas and only found forum posts similar to this one.It does nothing for your credibility .
Next time anchor your link or have a crawlable page if you want anyone to see what you have to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear  Sir,I have googled your ideas and only found forum posts similar to this one.It does nothing for your credibility.
Next time anchor your link or have a crawlable page if you want anyone to see what you have to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901947</id>
	<title>Tag story "noshit".</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1256721000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'</p></div><p>About time they figured that out.  Although it's probably still just some marketing PR-speak, rather than what they actually think....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
'About time they figured that out .
Although it 's probably still just some marketing PR-speak , rather than what they actually think... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
'About time they figured that out.
Although it's probably still just some marketing PR-speak, rather than what they actually think....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902271</id>
	<title>Released in November?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1256722620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I checked we had a habit of voting in the first week of November in the US.  I know there are more than a few elections being held around the country this year even though it is an odd year.  If the voting company takes votes in the first week and then releases their source code in the last week; is that really progress?  A lot of election results could likely be certified before we'd have time to see the code that counted the votes...<br> <br>
And of course if they did the same thing next year - after midterm 2010 elections - we could have an even more dramatic situation on our hands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked we had a habit of voting in the first week of November in the US .
I know there are more than a few elections being held around the country this year even though it is an odd year .
If the voting company takes votes in the first week and then releases their source code in the last week ; is that really progress ?
A lot of election results could likely be certified before we 'd have time to see the code that counted the votes.. . And of course if they did the same thing next year - after midterm 2010 elections - we could have an even more dramatic situation on our hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked we had a habit of voting in the first week of November in the US.
I know there are more than a few elections being held around the country this year even though it is an odd year.
If the voting company takes votes in the first week and then releases their source code in the last week; is that really progress?
A lot of election results could likely be certified before we'd have time to see the code that counted the votes... 
And of course if they did the same thing next year - after midterm 2010 elections - we could have an even more dramatic situation on our hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903509</id>
	<title>Re:Programming Thinking...Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's examine your arguments in the context of current proprietary voting systems.</p><p>1. Are you sure that current proprietary systems give you repeatable results?  No, you are not.</p><p>2. How will you know if there's a software bug in our current proprietary voting system? You won't.</p><p>3. How will you know if there is a hardware failure in current proprietary voting systems?  You won't.</p><p>It is a matter of trust, and I for one trust what I can verify.  Something so fundamental to our democracy should not be kept secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's examine your arguments in the context of current proprietary voting systems.1 .
Are you sure that current proprietary systems give you repeatable results ?
No , you are not.2 .
How will you know if there 's a software bug in our current proprietary voting system ?
You wo n't.3 .
How will you know if there is a hardware failure in current proprietary voting systems ?
You wo n't.It is a matter of trust , and I for one trust what I can verify .
Something so fundamental to our democracy should not be kept secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's examine your arguments in the context of current proprietary voting systems.1.
Are you sure that current proprietary systems give you repeatable results?
No, you are not.2.
How will you know if there's a software bug in our current proprietary voting system?
You won't.3.
How will you know if there is a hardware failure in current proprietary voting systems?
You won't.It is a matter of trust, and I for one trust what I can verify.
Something so fundamental to our democracy should not be kept secret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902357</id>
	<title>So say we find a bug...</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1256722980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So say we find a bug...</p><p>Do we disclose it, or do we sell it to the highest bidder?</p><p>I mean this assumes the bug will be discovered by at least one honest person who chooses to disclose, right?</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So say we find a bug...Do we disclose it , or do we sell it to the highest bidder ? I mean this assumes the bug will be discovered by at least one honest person who chooses to disclose , right ? -- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So say we find a bug...Do we disclose it, or do we sell it to the highest bidder?I mean this assumes the bug will be discovered by at least one honest person who chooses to disclose, right?-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902169</id>
	<title>Bad Time to be a Sequoia Developer</title>
	<author>kbob88</author>
	<datestamp>1256722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boss:  OK, guys. Marketing and PR has decided to release the source code publicly. You guys said our software is really nice, clean, secure code. So you don't have any problems with that, right?</p><p>Developers: Umm, yeah, sure, no problem... You know, we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [runs frantically back to computer and pounds away]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boss : OK , guys .
Marketing and PR has decided to release the source code publicly .
You guys said our software is really nice , clean , secure code .
So you do n't have any problems with that , right ? Developers : Umm , yeah , sure , no problem... You know , we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [ runs frantically back to computer and pounds away ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boss:  OK, guys.
Marketing and PR has decided to release the source code publicly.
You guys said our software is really nice, clean, secure code.
So you don't have any problems with that, right?Developers: Umm, yeah, sure, no problem... You know, we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [runs frantically back to computer and pounds away]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29906255</id>
	<title>Re:Programming Thinking...Again</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1256747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. In the event of a recount, can I get repeatable results?</p></div><p>They should test this with sample ballots.  Scan the same set of ballots hundreds of times on different machines, prior to the election.  There should be no discrepancies.  The margin of error should be zero.  If one machine counts one vote incorrectly, don't pay for the machines until the problem is identified and fixed and the test is run again (with a different set of sample ballots).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. In the event of a "software bug" can I hold someone responsible, will they pay for the cost of a reelection?</p></div><p>These are optical scan machines.  In the event of a software bug that causes votes to be miscounted, the bug can be fixed and the paper ballots can be recounted.  In the mean time, the ballots can be counted by hand at the company's expense.  No reelection is necessary.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. In the event of a hardware failure, can I hold someone responsible, are there contingency plans, will someone pay the cost of a reelection?</p></div><p>The contingency plan is, you collect the paper ballots in a securely locked box, and count them later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
In the event of a recount , can I get repeatable results ? They should test this with sample ballots .
Scan the same set of ballots hundreds of times on different machines , prior to the election .
There should be no discrepancies .
The margin of error should be zero .
If one machine counts one vote incorrectly , do n't pay for the machines until the problem is identified and fixed and the test is run again ( with a different set of sample ballots ) .2 .
In the event of a " software bug " can I hold someone responsible , will they pay for the cost of a reelection ? These are optical scan machines .
In the event of a software bug that causes votes to be miscounted , the bug can be fixed and the paper ballots can be recounted .
In the mean time , the ballots can be counted by hand at the company 's expense .
No reelection is necessary.3 .
In the event of a hardware failure , can I hold someone responsible , are there contingency plans , will someone pay the cost of a reelection ? The contingency plan is , you collect the paper ballots in a securely locked box , and count them later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
In the event of a recount, can I get repeatable results?They should test this with sample ballots.
Scan the same set of ballots hundreds of times on different machines, prior to the election.
There should be no discrepancies.
The margin of error should be zero.
If one machine counts one vote incorrectly, don't pay for the machines until the problem is identified and fixed and the test is run again (with a different set of sample ballots).2.
In the event of a "software bug" can I hold someone responsible, will they pay for the cost of a reelection?These are optical scan machines.
In the event of a software bug that causes votes to be miscounted, the bug can be fixed and the paper ballots can be recounted.
In the mean time, the ballots can be counted by hand at the company's expense.
No reelection is necessary.3.
In the event of a hardware failure, can I hold someone responsible, are there contingency plans, will someone pay the cost of a reelection?The contingency plan is, you collect the paper ballots in a securely locked box, and count them later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902113</id>
	<title>Horray!</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1256721840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow-- horray for them!

</p><p>There are still a lot of things to worry about with electronic voting-- but this goes a <b>long</b> way toward making the process transparent, and transparency (of the vote counting method) is absolutely <b>essential</b> to confidence in the results.
</p><p>Great news!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow-- horray for them !
There are still a lot of things to worry about with electronic voting-- but this goes a long way toward making the process transparent , and transparency ( of the vote counting method ) is absolutely essential to confidence in the results .
Great news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow-- horray for them!
There are still a lot of things to worry about with electronic voting-- but this goes a long way toward making the process transparent, and transparency (of the vote counting method) is absolutely essential to confidence in the results.
Great news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902645</id>
	<title>Re:plan to</title>
	<author>Leafheart</author>
	<datestamp>1256724600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election?</p></div><p>Not unless they are forced to has the source released and the source on the machine. Upload it in front of the people and verify the hash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election ? Not unless they are forced to has the source released and the source on the machine .
Upload it in front of the people and verify the hash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any guarantee that the source code they release is the actual code that will run on the machines during an election?Not unless they are forced to has the source released and the source on the machine.
Upload it in front of the people and verify the hash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904039</id>
	<title>VP quote</title>
	<author>Magrovsky</author>
	<datestamp>1256732220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security."</p></div><p>But obfuscation and secrecy can bring much security! This VP should listen to that other VP, who obfuscated his house and kept his secrets in man-sized safes. He never had a security problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
" But obfuscation and secrecy can bring much security !
This VP should listen to that other VP , who obfuscated his house and kept his secrets in man-sized safes .
He never had a security problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
"But obfuscation and secrecy can bring much security!
This VP should listen to that other VP, who obfuscated his house and kept his secrets in man-sized safes.
He never had a security problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902681</id>
	<title>Re:The Robinson Voting Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many problems with the described method.</p><p>First off, the tokens should never be coins or anything of monetary value, or else people will steal them.<br>If you give a voter 5 tokens to vote on 5 issues, what's to prevent him from stuffing all 5 tokens into the one box he cares about?<br>How do you make sure the voter carries no extra tokens in with him?  Body cavity search?<br>What do you do when the voter makes a mistake?<br>How do you propose to do a recount?<br>How do you make sure no one stuffs extra tokens in when no one is looking?<br>What if someone changes the box labels?<br>And then of course, how do you propose to add up counts across thousands of voting precincts?</p><p>This just the results of a few seconds thought.  I'm sure more thinking would bring out more issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many problems with the described method.First off , the tokens should never be coins or anything of monetary value , or else people will steal them.If you give a voter 5 tokens to vote on 5 issues , what 's to prevent him from stuffing all 5 tokens into the one box he cares about ? How do you make sure the voter carries no extra tokens in with him ?
Body cavity search ? What do you do when the voter makes a mistake ? How do you propose to do a recount ? How do you make sure no one stuffs extra tokens in when no one is looking ? What if someone changes the box labels ? And then of course , how do you propose to add up counts across thousands of voting precincts ? This just the results of a few seconds thought .
I 'm sure more thinking would bring out more issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many problems with the described method.First off, the tokens should never be coins or anything of monetary value, or else people will steal them.If you give a voter 5 tokens to vote on 5 issues, what's to prevent him from stuffing all 5 tokens into the one box he cares about?How do you make sure the voter carries no extra tokens in with him?
Body cavity search?What do you do when the voter makes a mistake?How do you propose to do a recount?How do you make sure no one stuffs extra tokens in when no one is looking?What if someone changes the box labels?And then of course, how do you propose to add up counts across thousands of voting precincts?This just the results of a few seconds thought.
I'm sure more thinking would bring out more issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902425</id>
	<title>J. Rubard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256723280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Code on, my *chunk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Code on , my * chunk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code on, my *chunk</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902603</id>
	<title>Virus Rights!</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1256724360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someday soon, viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement. This is how modern democracy will end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday soon , viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement .
This is how modern democracy will end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday soon, viruses will become intelligent enough to have their own voter suffrage movement.
This is how modern democracy will end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902889</id>
	<title>Re:The Robinson Voting Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't sound very auditable to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound very auditable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound very auditable to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29908003</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1256813040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, Diebold? It's not so hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , Diebold ?
It 's not so hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, Diebold?
It's not so hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902167</id>
	<title>secrecy is not security?</title>
	<author>zerosomething</author>
	<datestamp>1256722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>so it's OK then to put my passwords on post-its?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so it 's OK then to put my passwords on post-its ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it's OK then to put my passwords on post-its?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904855</id>
	<title>Re:plan to</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1256737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open or closed source, how can you ever be sure what the software is on a device unless you personally compiled and loaded it?  And even then what about the compiler and linker you used, the OS you're using, the BIOS and even the hardware itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open or closed source , how can you ever be sure what the software is on a device unless you personally compiled and loaded it ?
And even then what about the compiler and linker you used , the OS you 're using , the BIOS and even the hardware itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open or closed source, how can you ever be sure what the software is on a device unless you personally compiled and loaded it?
And even then what about the compiler and linker you used, the OS you're using, the BIOS and even the hardware itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902447</id>
	<title>good step</title>
	<author>garynuman</author>
	<datestamp>1256723400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm one of "those people" who still requests a paper ballot due to not trusting diebold machines, this however is a big step in convincing me to trust the machines though, in the past electronic voting has been, to me at least, the equivalent of the board of elections refusing to disclose how exactly they count paper ballots, doing it in secret, and destroying the ballots afterward.... not exactly conducive to honest elections as far as I'm concerned...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of " those people " who still requests a paper ballot due to not trusting diebold machines , this however is a big step in convincing me to trust the machines though , in the past electronic voting has been , to me at least , the equivalent of the board of elections refusing to disclose how exactly they count paper ballots , doing it in secret , and destroying the ballots afterward.... not exactly conducive to honest elections as far as I 'm concerned.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of "those people" who still requests a paper ballot due to not trusting diebold machines, this however is a big step in convincing me to trust the machines though, in the past electronic voting has been, to me at least, the equivalent of the board of elections refusing to disclose how exactly they count paper ballots, doing it in secret, and destroying the ballots afterward.... not exactly conducive to honest elections as far as I'm concerned...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902327</id>
	<title>optical-scan?</title>
	<author>mikeee</author>
	<datestamp>1256722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key point here is actually that it's an optical-scan machine!   You don't input votes on a keyboard or touchscreen but by feeding in an actual human-readable piece of paper (maybe it asks for confirmation that it read it correctly?), which then gets stored in a lockbox.  This is obviously the Right Thing because it gives a built-in hardcopy audit trail.</p><p>In short, I think we're missing the SuddenOutbreakofCommonSense tag on this story...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key point here is actually that it 's an optical-scan machine !
You do n't input votes on a keyboard or touchscreen but by feeding in an actual human-readable piece of paper ( maybe it asks for confirmation that it read it correctly ?
) , which then gets stored in a lockbox .
This is obviously the Right Thing because it gives a built-in hardcopy audit trail.In short , I think we 're missing the SuddenOutbreakofCommonSense tag on this story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key point here is actually that it's an optical-scan machine!
You don't input votes on a keyboard or touchscreen but by feeding in an actual human-readable piece of paper (maybe it asks for confirmation that it read it correctly?
), which then gets stored in a lockbox.
This is obviously the Right Thing because it gives a built-in hardcopy audit trail.In short, I think we're missing the SuddenOutbreakofCommonSense tag on this story...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29911421</id>
	<title>Just Because</title>
	<author>creeves1982</author>
	<datestamp>1256835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because they are releasing they source code, dose not mean that is the code that is complied on all there machines</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they are releasing they source code , dose not mean that is the code that is complied on all there machines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they are releasing they source code, dose not mean that is the code that is complied on all there machines</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903847</id>
	<title>Re:The Robinson Voting Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chaum voting &gt; Robinson voting</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chaum voting &gt; Robinson voting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chaum voting &gt; Robinson voting</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903761</id>
	<title>Require Unanimous Vote</title>
	<author>j0ebaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1</p><p>The Articles of Confederation required Unanimous consent for changes<br>to it.  Well some criminals conviened and came up with the US<br>Constitution - they did it in secret and nobody signed the document as<br>a signature, only as witnesses.  This is a problem.  People have<br>gotten away from unanimous consent and I think we really need to get<br>back to the idea that one lone dissenter can and should be able to<br>stand his ground.  I tend to be that one person quite allot these<br>days.</p><p>The idea is that nothing may be coerced and voluntary informed consent<br>free of deception with full disclosure  - these are a perquisite to<br>all contract law.<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)</p><p>iEYEARECAAYFAkroyjcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmC+6QCfTmlr2OFDKsb42WPqbymAWI6D<br>cP8An0cgyxdaqzwHJArmsS3xt17QXte0<br>=NVLo<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash : SHA1The Articles of Confederation required Unanimous consent for changesto it .
Well some criminals conviened and came up with the USConstitution - they did it in secret and nobody signed the document asa signature , only as witnesses .
This is a problem .
People havegotten away from unanimous consent and I think we really need to getback to the idea that one lone dissenter can and should be able tostand his ground .
I tend to be that one person quite allot thesedays.The idea is that nothing may be coerced and voluntary informed consentfree of deception with full disclosure - these are a perquisite toall contract law.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version : GnuPG v1.4.9 ( GNU/Linux ) iEYEARECAAYFAkroyjcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmC + 6QCfTmlr2OFDKsb42WPqbymAWI6DcP8An0cgyxdaqzwHJArmsS3xt17QXte0 = NVLo-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1The Articles of Confederation required Unanimous consent for changesto it.
Well some criminals conviened and came up with the USConstitution - they did it in secret and nobody signed the document asa signature, only as witnesses.
This is a problem.
People havegotten away from unanimous consent and I think we really need to getback to the idea that one lone dissenter can and should be able tostand his ground.
I tend to be that one person quite allot thesedays.The idea is that nothing may be coerced and voluntary informed consentfree of deception with full disclosure  - these are a perquisite toall contract law.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)iEYEARECAAYFAkroyjcACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmC+6QCfTmlr2OFDKsb42WPqbymAWI6DcP8An0cgyxdaqzwHJArmsS3xt17QXte0=NVLo-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907321</id>
	<title>Re:A step in the right direction</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1256759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>More work needs to be done; in particular, the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election.</i></p><p>Why not?  The security of open source comes not from being on the creative commons, but from being seen and commented upon by hundreds of eyes.  If Sequoia publishes their source code, and it gets properly vetted by hungry young researchers eager for their first big bug, why would that be any less secure than if the implementation were technically open-source?  It should only be about 200 lines anyway.</p><p>I'd personally rather use an open-source voting system myself, but quite frankly the <i>important</i> fight is for security first.</p><p>As a side note, good on Sequoia for doing this.  Even if you believe that this is just a cynical ploy to stall critics of the company, it still changes the discussion from "Is closed source the most secure software model out there" to "how open can you be with proprietary software so that you can get the security benefits?"  This is good for us all.  Hopefully this will be a success for Sequoia and the voting public in general, and we'll get more legitimate election results in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More work needs to be done ; in particular , the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election.Why not ?
The security of open source comes not from being on the creative commons , but from being seen and commented upon by hundreds of eyes .
If Sequoia publishes their source code , and it gets properly vetted by hungry young researchers eager for their first big bug , why would that be any less secure than if the implementation were technically open-source ?
It should only be about 200 lines anyway.I 'd personally rather use an open-source voting system myself , but quite frankly the important fight is for security first.As a side note , good on Sequoia for doing this .
Even if you believe that this is just a cynical ploy to stall critics of the company , it still changes the discussion from " Is closed source the most secure software model out there " to " how open can you be with proprietary software so that you can get the security benefits ?
" This is good for us all .
Hopefully this will be a success for Sequoia and the voting public in general , and we 'll get more legitimate election results in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More work needs to be done; in particular, the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election.Why not?
The security of open source comes not from being on the creative commons, but from being seen and commented upon by hundreds of eyes.
If Sequoia publishes their source code, and it gets properly vetted by hungry young researchers eager for their first big bug, why would that be any less secure than if the implementation were technically open-source?
It should only be about 200 lines anyway.I'd personally rather use an open-source voting system myself, but quite frankly the important fight is for security first.As a side note, good on Sequoia for doing this.
Even if you believe that this is just a cynical ploy to stall critics of the company, it still changes the discussion from "Is closed source the most secure software model out there" to "how open can you be with proprietary software so that you can get the security benefits?
"  This is good for us all.
Hopefully this will be a success for Sequoia and the voting public in general, and we'll get more legitimate election results in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039</id>
	<title>I'd be more interested in this post</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1256721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>if I didn't know that when someone makes a statement such as, "To Tell The Truth," they are generally trying to hide their true objective.  This applies to the VP quote below, which is obviously not an original thought or deeply felt opinion, otherwise the company would have performed in this manner from day 1.
<br>
<br>
"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'""</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if I did n't know that when someone makes a statement such as , " To Tell The Truth , " they are generally trying to hide their true objective .
This applies to the VP quote below , which is obviously not an original thought or deeply felt opinion , otherwise the company would have performed in this manner from day 1 .
" According to a VP quoted in the press release , 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security .
' " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I didn't know that when someone makes a statement such as, "To Tell The Truth," they are generally trying to hide their true objective.
This applies to the VP quote below, which is obviously not an original thought or deeply felt opinion, otherwise the company would have performed in this manner from day 1.
"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.
'""
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902255</id>
	<title>Why a delay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd guess it's worries about patents, partners, and other politically related things.<br>Closed source makes it harder to claim patent infringement, when such things as xor and swinging side-to-side are allowed to be patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd guess it 's worries about patents , partners , and other politically related things.Closed source makes it harder to claim patent infringement , when such things as xor and swinging side-to-side are allowed to be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd guess it's worries about patents, partners, and other politically related things.Closed source makes it harder to claim patent infringement, when such things as xor and swinging side-to-side are allowed to be patented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907423</id>
	<title>Re:Programming Thinking...Again</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1256846760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting the source code to the wider community for review would definitely help with 1. and 2. by increasing the amount of reported bugs and helping the developers to patch them.  Hardware failures are a bit more difficult to face down, but hardware is pretty good these days.</p><p>You can get all 3 if you want, but the cost would be outrageous.  Districts who are struggling to find funding for their schools simply wouldn't be able to pay for all of that.  You're essentially asking for the equivalent of 99.999\% uptime with fiscal penalties for falling below that, and it just isn't cheap.</p><p>I had a friend who worked on the server software for those emergency button things that old people wear.  They estimated that for every 5 minutes of downtime, someone died.  A single server upgrade could involve a year or more of production and testing.  That didn't come cheaply, and everyone knew the human cost that a single bug could precipitate.</p><p>Now flash forward to cities that have to decide between breaking union contracts with their street repair people or selling off all of their libraries, and you can see why voting systems are not at the top of the priority queue.  In that view, there are easier ways to rig an election than through software, and that money would be better spent elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting the source code to the wider community for review would definitely help with 1. and 2. by increasing the amount of reported bugs and helping the developers to patch them .
Hardware failures are a bit more difficult to face down , but hardware is pretty good these days.You can get all 3 if you want , but the cost would be outrageous .
Districts who are struggling to find funding for their schools simply would n't be able to pay for all of that .
You 're essentially asking for the equivalent of 99.999 \ % uptime with fiscal penalties for falling below that , and it just is n't cheap.I had a friend who worked on the server software for those emergency button things that old people wear .
They estimated that for every 5 minutes of downtime , someone died .
A single server upgrade could involve a year or more of production and testing .
That did n't come cheaply , and everyone knew the human cost that a single bug could precipitate.Now flash forward to cities that have to decide between breaking union contracts with their street repair people or selling off all of their libraries , and you can see why voting systems are not at the top of the priority queue .
In that view , there are easier ways to rig an election than through software , and that money would be better spent elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting the source code to the wider community for review would definitely help with 1. and 2. by increasing the amount of reported bugs and helping the developers to patch them.
Hardware failures are a bit more difficult to face down, but hardware is pretty good these days.You can get all 3 if you want, but the cost would be outrageous.
Districts who are struggling to find funding for their schools simply wouldn't be able to pay for all of that.
You're essentially asking for the equivalent of 99.999\% uptime with fiscal penalties for falling below that, and it just isn't cheap.I had a friend who worked on the server software for those emergency button things that old people wear.
They estimated that for every 5 minutes of downtime, someone died.
A single server upgrade could involve a year or more of production and testing.
That didn't come cheaply, and everyone knew the human cost that a single bug could precipitate.Now flash forward to cities that have to decide between breaking union contracts with their street repair people or selling off all of their libraries, and you can see why voting systems are not at the top of the priority queue.
In that view, there are easier ways to rig an election than through software, and that money would be better spent elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901951</id>
	<title>A step in the right direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More work needs to be done; in particular, the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election.  Hoping for these companies to volunteer their source code is just not enough, although I do applaud Sequoia for taking this step.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More work needs to be done ; in particular , the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election .
Hoping for these companies to volunteer their source code is just not enough , although I do applaud Sequoia for taking this step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More work needs to be done; in particular, the government should simply mandate that no proprietary software may be used in any voting machine that is actually used in an election.
Hoping for these companies to volunteer their source code is just not enough, although I do applaud Sequoia for taking this step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902041</id>
	<title>ok. someone needs to say it.</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of these?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29909075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29906255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1953223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29906255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29907321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29904039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29901947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29909075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1953223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29902603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1953223.29903531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
