<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_0331227</id>
	<title>Feds Bust Cable Modem Hacker</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257264960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several readers noted the <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/derengel/">indictment of hardware hacker Ryan Harris, known as DerEngel</a>. Harris wrote the 2006 book <em>Hacking the Cable Modem</em>, explaining how to get upgraded speed or even free Internet service by bypassing the firmware locks on Motorola Surfboard modems. He has run a profitable business at tcniso.net since 2003, selling unlocked cable modems. (The site is now offline.) Harris has been charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud. <em>Wired</em> quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment &mdash; it's complete bull****. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several readers noted the indictment of hardware hacker Ryan Harris , known as DerEngel .
Harris wrote the 2006 book Hacking the Cable Modem , explaining how to get upgraded speed or even free Internet service by bypassing the firmware locks on Motorola Surfboard modems .
He has run a profitable business at tcniso.net since 2003 , selling unlocked cable modems .
( The site is now offline .
) Harris has been charged with conspiracy , aiding and abetting computer intrusion , and wire fraud .
Wired quotes Harris 's reaction : " I read the indictment    it 's complete bull * * * * .
I 'll tell you right now I 'm not going to plead guilty .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several readers noted the indictment of hardware hacker Ryan Harris, known as DerEngel.
Harris wrote the 2006 book Hacking the Cable Modem, explaining how to get upgraded speed or even free Internet service by bypassing the firmware locks on Motorola Surfboard modems.
He has run a profitable business at tcniso.net since 2003, selling unlocked cable modems.
(The site is now offline.
) Harris has been charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud.
Wired quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment — it's complete bull****.
I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960098</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>mikeken</author>
	<datestamp>1257185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never really understand the argument where there are more important things for such and such to be doing. There what tens of thousands of federal prosecutors in this country? More workers than work if you ask me... hmm... sounds like an economical fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never really understand the argument where there are more important things for such and such to be doing .
There what tens of thousands of federal prosecutors in this country ?
More workers than work if you ask me... hmm... sounds like an economical fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never really understand the argument where there are more important things for such and such to be doing.
There what tens of thousands of federal prosecutors in this country?
More workers than work if you ask me... hmm... sounds like an economical fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</id>
	<title>It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1257183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960102</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1257185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gun sellers also have extremely specific laws they have to follow or the face jail time for not filling out paperwork.... but following that paperwork limits their liability for the gun owner's actions AFTER the sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gun sellers also have extremely specific laws they have to follow or the face jail time for not filling out paperwork.... but following that paperwork limits their liability for the gun owner 's actions AFTER the sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gun sellers also have extremely specific laws they have to follow or the face jail time for not filling out paperwork.... but following that paperwork limits their liability for the gun owner's actions AFTER the sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing. Morally and legally.</p> </div><p>Uh, no.  Modifying equipment is not stealing, especially when its your own damn property.<br><i>Using</i> that equipment to steal is stealing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is , in fact , stealing .
Morally and legally .
Uh , no .
Modifying equipment is not stealing , especially when its your own damn property.Using that equipment to steal is stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing.
Morally and legally.
Uh, no.
Modifying equipment is not stealing, especially when its your own damn property.Using that equipment to steal is stealing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960916</id>
	<title>Der Engel means...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257280740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the angel in German.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the angel in German .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the angel in German.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962264</id>
	<title>An example of a valid use of the book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cable provider rents modems, but I like to have my own around at least as a spare. I bought a used one, same model as the cable company. Can't use it because they want their MAC address, so my spare is not usable. They won't allow any other MAC than theirs and I prefer to just solve the problem technically rather than continue to deal with their bureaucrats who seem to think the modem cannot possibly have been sold legally (they are available on many places on the net, used mostly but some new). Using the book to reset the MAC to match theirs will mean that if theirs fails, I have a hot spare that can be swapped in. BTW I already pay for their fastest service, have no motivation to try to get more. (Doubt the upstream system could give more than I pay for anyway...we are somewhat in boondocks.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cable provider rents modems , but I like to have my own around at least as a spare .
I bought a used one , same model as the cable company .
Ca n't use it because they want their MAC address , so my spare is not usable .
They wo n't allow any other MAC than theirs and I prefer to just solve the problem technically rather than continue to deal with their bureaucrats who seem to think the modem can not possibly have been sold legally ( they are available on many places on the net , used mostly but some new ) .
Using the book to reset the MAC to match theirs will mean that if theirs fails , I have a hot spare that can be swapped in .
BTW I already pay for their fastest service , have no motivation to try to get more .
( Doubt the upstream system could give more than I pay for anyway...we are somewhat in boondocks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cable provider rents modems, but I like to have my own around at least as a spare.
I bought a used one, same model as the cable company.
Can't use it because they want their MAC address, so my spare is not usable.
They won't allow any other MAC than theirs and I prefer to just solve the problem technically rather than continue to deal with their bureaucrats who seem to think the modem cannot possibly have been sold legally (they are available on many places on the net, used mostly but some new).
Using the book to reset the MAC to match theirs will mean that if theirs fails, I have a hot spare that can be swapped in.
BTW I already pay for their fastest service, have no motivation to try to get more.
(Doubt the upstream system could give more than I pay for anyway...we are somewhat in boondocks.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966092</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love it how americans keep falling back on the second amendment, spouting it like it's gospel.</p><p>"You can't make me not own a hundred firearms, because of the SECOND AMENDMENT!"</p><p>Try reading it in full sometime.  Also, stop trying to twist rulings from when society was vastly, VASTLY different to fit current society.  That's why things are so fucked up with to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it how americans keep falling back on the second amendment , spouting it like it 's gospel .
" You ca n't make me not own a hundred firearms , because of the SECOND AMENDMENT !
" Try reading it in full sometime .
Also , stop trying to twist rulings from when society was vastly , VASTLY different to fit current society .
That 's why things are so fucked up with to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it how americans keep falling back on the second amendment, spouting it like it's gospel.
"You can't make me not own a hundred firearms, because of the SECOND AMENDMENT!
"Try reading it in full sometime.
Also, stop trying to twist rulings from when society was vastly, VASTLY different to fit current society.
That's why things are so fucked up with to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963338</id>
	<title>Re:Paperwork infraction</title>
	<author>Bobx23456</author>
	<datestamp>1257263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In general there are way too many laws and way too much "punishment."  We live in what could be accurately characterized as a "police state" with more men in prisons than any other nation at any other time in the history of humanity.

Victimless "crime" is not a crime at all.  The government should mind its own business.  If the prosecutor can't find a victim to appear in court and demonstrate their injuries, then the prosecutor should be slapped with a penalty. And police don't count as "victims."  They aren't there to create "crime."

Annoyances are not crimes.  The government should not get involved.

That leaves crimes against other people, murder, robbery, assault, etc.  Again, if the person isn't harmed, then no crime is committed.  Most fights are offsetting penalties, no government penalty involved.  Robberies and other property crimes need restitution, not punishment. The criminal needs to be an indentured servant to the victim until the debt is paid back.

That leaves serious injury or death crimes. If its a whiny MIL he should get a medal, not a punishment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general there are way too many laws and way too much " punishment .
" We live in what could be accurately characterized as a " police state " with more men in prisons than any other nation at any other time in the history of humanity .
Victimless " crime " is not a crime at all .
The government should mind its own business .
If the prosecutor ca n't find a victim to appear in court and demonstrate their injuries , then the prosecutor should be slapped with a penalty .
And police do n't count as " victims .
" They are n't there to create " crime .
" Annoyances are not crimes .
The government should not get involved .
That leaves crimes against other people , murder , robbery , assault , etc .
Again , if the person is n't harmed , then no crime is committed .
Most fights are offsetting penalties , no government penalty involved .
Robberies and other property crimes need restitution , not punishment .
The criminal needs to be an indentured servant to the victim until the debt is paid back .
That leaves serious injury or death crimes .
If its a whiny MIL he should get a medal , not a punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general there are way too many laws and way too much "punishment.
"  We live in what could be accurately characterized as a "police state" with more men in prisons than any other nation at any other time in the history of humanity.
Victimless "crime" is not a crime at all.
The government should mind its own business.
If the prosecutor can't find a victim to appear in court and demonstrate their injuries, then the prosecutor should be slapped with a penalty.
And police don't count as "victims.
"  They aren't there to create "crime.
"

Annoyances are not crimes.
The government should not get involved.
That leaves crimes against other people, murder, robbery, assault, etc.
Again, if the person isn't harmed, then no crime is committed.
Most fights are offsetting penalties, no government penalty involved.
Robberies and other property crimes need restitution, not punishment.
The criminal needs to be an indentured servant to the victim until the debt is paid back.
That leaves serious injury or death crimes.
If its a whiny MIL he should get a medal, not a punishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967986</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1257241920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? They provide an "unlimited" connection to your house and you install your own box. Shouldn't they be controlling the speed you get at their switch? If you don't touch their equipment it's not like you are bypassing their controls. What they should be doing is metering your bandwidth and charging you for what you use...</p><p>That way, feel free to mod your box all you want! Just be ready for a big ass bill if you increase your bandwidth use and total download GB. That way the cap is there for the user's own good and them removing it only hurts themselves.</p><p>IMHO it's not stealing as much as the cable company's billing model and way of doing business being, well, retarded. They can certainly track your usage but don't. Is that really the user's problem?</p><p>Relying on a box the user has in their possession to control their connection is, not to put too fine a point on it, abject stupidity. Physical access &gt; root. Security 101.</p><p>If I were the guys lawyer, I'd approach this case from that angle if there's a good legal argument somewhere in there.</p><p>The cable company plays itself as a victim but you make your own reality. They could easily fix the problem with economic means. I guarantee you after that first bill came, every one of those modems would have an artificial cap turned back on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
They provide an " unlimited " connection to your house and you install your own box .
Should n't they be controlling the speed you get at their switch ?
If you do n't touch their equipment it 's not like you are bypassing their controls .
What they should be doing is metering your bandwidth and charging you for what you use...That way , feel free to mod your box all you want !
Just be ready for a big ass bill if you increase your bandwidth use and total download GB .
That way the cap is there for the user 's own good and them removing it only hurts themselves.IMHO it 's not stealing as much as the cable company 's billing model and way of doing business being , well , retarded .
They can certainly track your usage but do n't .
Is that really the user 's problem ? Relying on a box the user has in their possession to control their connection is , not to put too fine a point on it , abject stupidity .
Physical access &gt; root .
Security 101.If I were the guys lawyer , I 'd approach this case from that angle if there 's a good legal argument somewhere in there.The cable company plays itself as a victim but you make your own reality .
They could easily fix the problem with economic means .
I guarantee you after that first bill came , every one of those modems would have an artificial cap turned back on ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
They provide an "unlimited" connection to your house and you install your own box.
Shouldn't they be controlling the speed you get at their switch?
If you don't touch their equipment it's not like you are bypassing their controls.
What they should be doing is metering your bandwidth and charging you for what you use...That way, feel free to mod your box all you want!
Just be ready for a big ass bill if you increase your bandwidth use and total download GB.
That way the cap is there for the user's own good and them removing it only hurts themselves.IMHO it's not stealing as much as the cable company's billing model and way of doing business being, well, retarded.
They can certainly track your usage but don't.
Is that really the user's problem?Relying on a box the user has in their possession to control their connection is, not to put too fine a point on it, abject stupidity.
Physical access &gt; root.
Security 101.If I were the guys lawyer, I'd approach this case from that angle if there's a good legal argument somewhere in there.The cable company plays itself as a victim but you make your own reality.
They could easily fix the problem with economic means.
I guarantee you after that first bill came, every one of those modems would have an artificial cap turned back on ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967976</id>
	<title>Using your own modem is legal</title>
	<author>frzndrag</author>
	<datestamp>1257241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use your own modem, the issue is supporting it on the plant, different modems support different parts of the DOCSIS protocol, and providers use specific portions for different things (like voice QOS or bonding for other BW tiers or redundancy) and they need to set a modem to support them.<br>What you are actually paying for in that rental is not just the hardware but the maintenance behind it, if your modem dies they will replace it at no cost to you. If you Bring Your Own you are responsible for it once the warranty from the manufacturer expires (if it dies you need to buy a new one)</p><p>Motorola, Cisco and others sell Cable Gateways you can go buy at your local big box store and those are supported by the cable companies but give you more features than your average dumb modem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use your own modem , the issue is supporting it on the plant , different modems support different parts of the DOCSIS protocol , and providers use specific portions for different things ( like voice QOS or bonding for other BW tiers or redundancy ) and they need to set a modem to support them.What you are actually paying for in that rental is not just the hardware but the maintenance behind it , if your modem dies they will replace it at no cost to you .
If you Bring Your Own you are responsible for it once the warranty from the manufacturer expires ( if it dies you need to buy a new one ) Motorola , Cisco and others sell Cable Gateways you can go buy at your local big box store and those are supported by the cable companies but give you more features than your average dumb modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use your own modem, the issue is supporting it on the plant, different modems support different parts of the DOCSIS protocol, and providers use specific portions for different things (like voice QOS or bonding for other BW tiers or redundancy) and they need to set a modem to support them.What you are actually paying for in that rental is not just the hardware but the maintenance behind it, if your modem dies they will replace it at no cost to you.
If you Bring Your Own you are responsible for it once the warranty from the manufacturer expires (if it dies you need to buy a new one)Motorola, Cisco and others sell Cable Gateways you can go buy at your local big box store and those are supported by the cable companies but give you more features than your average dumb modem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973012</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The equipment you modify is bought by you for you not from an ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The equipment you modify is bought by you for you not from an ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The equipment you modify is bought by you for you not from an ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961880</id>
	<title>Plus who would you rather harass?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1257251280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The geek with computers or the gun with guns?</p><p>Eventually it might become more dangerous to go after the geeks, until then they are free check mark in the win column</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The geek with computers or the gun with guns ? Eventually it might become more dangerous to go after the geeks , until then they are free check mark in the win column</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The geek with computers or the gun with guns?Eventually it might become more dangerous to go after the geeks, until then they are free check mark in the win column</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962148</id>
	<title>Ummmm, have you heard of the ATF?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257254520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an agency that deals just with guns, alcohol and tobacco. A large part of what they deal with these days, is guns. There are laws upon laws as to what is and isn't legal with guns, and they are zealously enforced. Is selling a gun legal? Sure. However there are plenty of kinds of guns that aren't, except to special people, and modifications that aren't. Like try selling modifications that convert semi-automatic carbines in to fully automatic ones. It is just a modified trigger/firing pin assembly. You sell that and your ass is going to prison for a long time. Or how about dealers that can sell automatic weapons? Well first off they have to have a special class of license to be allowed to do that (class 3 FFL if you are wondering) which is a pain to get. Once the have it though doesn't mean they can just sell them. Nope, only certain people can buy them like police. Sell them to random civilians, again off to prison with you. Heck you sell a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" to a civilian and you are in trouble.</p><p>So it seems to me that there is no difference, other than that guns have far more rules and restrictions. They are not saying you can't sell cable modems. Cable modems are for sale everywhere. Best Buy has hundreds from all different makers. Cable companies give them out for free with new accounts often. You can get a cable modem any time you like with no background check (something required to buy a gun) for very cheap from any number of stores, none of which need to be licensed to sell them to you. All they are saying is that you can't sell cable modems designed to commit theft of service by taking service you have not paid for.</p><p>But please, don't let facts get in the way of your manufactured rage and gun rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an agency that deals just with guns , alcohol and tobacco .
A large part of what they deal with these days , is guns .
There are laws upon laws as to what is and is n't legal with guns , and they are zealously enforced .
Is selling a gun legal ?
Sure. However there are plenty of kinds of guns that are n't , except to special people , and modifications that are n't .
Like try selling modifications that convert semi-automatic carbines in to fully automatic ones .
It is just a modified trigger/firing pin assembly .
You sell that and your ass is going to prison for a long time .
Or how about dealers that can sell automatic weapons ?
Well first off they have to have a special class of license to be allowed to do that ( class 3 FFL if you are wondering ) which is a pain to get .
Once the have it though does n't mean they can just sell them .
Nope , only certain people can buy them like police .
Sell them to random civilians , again off to prison with you .
Heck you sell a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 " to a civilian and you are in trouble.So it seems to me that there is no difference , other than that guns have far more rules and restrictions .
They are not saying you ca n't sell cable modems .
Cable modems are for sale everywhere .
Best Buy has hundreds from all different makers .
Cable companies give them out for free with new accounts often .
You can get a cable modem any time you like with no background check ( something required to buy a gun ) for very cheap from any number of stores , none of which need to be licensed to sell them to you .
All they are saying is that you ca n't sell cable modems designed to commit theft of service by taking service you have not paid for.But please , do n't let facts get in the way of your manufactured rage and gun rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an agency that deals just with guns, alcohol and tobacco.
A large part of what they deal with these days, is guns.
There are laws upon laws as to what is and isn't legal with guns, and they are zealously enforced.
Is selling a gun legal?
Sure. However there are plenty of kinds of guns that aren't, except to special people, and modifications that aren't.
Like try selling modifications that convert semi-automatic carbines in to fully automatic ones.
It is just a modified trigger/firing pin assembly.
You sell that and your ass is going to prison for a long time.
Or how about dealers that can sell automatic weapons?
Well first off they have to have a special class of license to be allowed to do that (class 3 FFL if you are wondering) which is a pain to get.
Once the have it though doesn't mean they can just sell them.
Nope, only certain people can buy them like police.
Sell them to random civilians, again off to prison with you.
Heck you sell a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" to a civilian and you are in trouble.So it seems to me that there is no difference, other than that guns have far more rules and restrictions.
They are not saying you can't sell cable modems.
Cable modems are for sale everywhere.
Best Buy has hundreds from all different makers.
Cable companies give them out for free with new accounts often.
You can get a cable modem any time you like with no background check (something required to buy a gun) for very cheap from any number of stores, none of which need to be licensed to sell them to you.
All they are saying is that you can't sell cable modems designed to commit theft of service by taking service you have not paid for.But please, don't let facts get in the way of your manufactured rage and gun rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961042</id>
	<title>Citizen vs Corporate citizen...</title>
	<author>macinit</author>
	<datestamp>1257239400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wealthy corporations can stomp these people out of existence at their whim.  I can't believe someone actually thought that in today's post 9/11, ever increasingly fascist era, thought they were going to have the upper hand against corporate America.  Corporate America own Congress and can practically have the Constitution thrown out of the courtroom if it suites them. Lot's of luck buddy, too bad you were a little too naive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wealthy corporations can stomp these people out of existence at their whim .
I ca n't believe someone actually thought that in today 's post 9/11 , ever increasingly fascist era , thought they were going to have the upper hand against corporate America .
Corporate America own Congress and can practically have the Constitution thrown out of the courtroom if it suites them .
Lot 's of luck buddy , too bad you were a little too naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wealthy corporations can stomp these people out of existence at their whim.
I can't believe someone actually thought that in today's post 9/11, ever increasingly fascist era, thought they were going to have the upper hand against corporate America.
Corporate America own Congress and can practically have the Constitution thrown out of the courtroom if it suites them.
Lot's of luck buddy, too bad you were a little too naive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960148</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1257186120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This IS a crime.  It's defrauding the cable company by telling the CMTS to let you online when it shouldn't.  I'm surprised it took this long to find him, TBH.</p><p>I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar, does that make ATMs open targets?  No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This IS a crime .
It 's defrauding the cable company by telling the CMTS to let you online when it should n't .
I 'm surprised it took this long to find him , TBH.I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar , does that make ATMs open targets ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This IS a crime.
It's defrauding the cable company by telling the CMTS to let you online when it shouldn't.
I'm surprised it took this long to find him, TBH.I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar, does that make ATMs open targets?
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961160</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>NonSequor</author>
	<datestamp>1257240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the power grid isn't sophisticated enough to detect that I've modified my power meter then modifying my power meter isn't fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the power grid is n't sophisticated enough to detect that I 've modified my power meter then modifying my power meter is n't fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the power grid isn't sophisticated enough to detect that I've modified my power meter then modifying my power meter isn't fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</id>
	<title>This is not a crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line.  That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for.  It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities.  I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?

</p><p>If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****.  As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time?  Some joker modifying cable modems.  You gotta be f'ing kidding me.

</p><p>That takes it out of the realm of mere bull**** and puts in the realm of critical mass galactic mega-bull****.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line .
That 's equipment you pay for and service you pay for .
It 's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities .
I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer , then where 's their accountability ?
If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing , I 'd still think it was bull * * * * .
As it is , when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches , contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed , terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time ?
Some joker modifying cable modems .
You got ta be f'ing kidding me .
That takes it out of the realm of mere bull * * * * and puts in the realm of critical mass galactic mega-bull * * * * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line.
That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for.
It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities.
I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?
If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****.
As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time?
Some joker modifying cable modems.
You gotta be f'ing kidding me.
That takes it out of the realm of mere bull**** and puts in the realm of critical mass galactic mega-bull****.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964648</id>
	<title>Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You assume you'd survive with an attitude like that. I wouldn't want to bet on that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume you 'd survive with an attitude like that .
I would n't want to bet on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume you'd survive with an attitude like that.
I wouldn't want to bet on that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962522</id>
	<title>Freeloaders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't be too thrilled if some other freeloader decided to hog all the bandwidth on "your" circuit would you?  Its only okay when you do it.  Nobody else okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't be too thrilled if some other freeloader decided to hog all the bandwidth on " your " circuit would you ?
Its only okay when you do it .
Nobody else okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't be too thrilled if some other freeloader decided to hog all the bandwidth on "your" circuit would you?
Its only okay when you do it.
Nobody else okay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959930</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>gatekeep</author>
	<datestamp>1257184200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, they have guns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , they have guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, they have guns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p><p>Please mod this guy up.</p><p>However, is the equipment provided to you by Comcast *your* property?, if it is (or if you bought a "premoded" one then there is no problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you.Please mod this guy up.However , is the equipment provided to you by Comcast * your * property ? , if it is ( or if you bought a " premoded " one then there is no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.Please mod this guy up.However, is the equipment provided to you by Comcast *your* property?, if it is (or if you bought a "premoded" one then there is no problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166</id>
	<title>Not criminal?  Prove it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked over the article, and now I'm curious.  The Slashdot crowd usually sides with the techie on incidents like this, but is it really justified here?  The popular analogy here is that it's akin to charging gun manufacturers with murder.  Guns have legitimate uses, such as hunting, or protection.  What legitimate use does a modem hacked/modified to access an ISP's services without permission have?  A better analogy here would be a gun manufacturer who sells a gun, a kit to turn the gun into an automatic weapon, and detailed instructions on how to get past the security of a specific bank.  You can argue that the gun wasn't sold with the intent to facilitate a robbery, but you can't do it with a straight face.</p><p>Of course, I'm open-minded, so someone prove me wrong - tell me what legitimate uses these modified modems have.  (Caveat: the use Harris suggested in the article won't fly, unless you can give some very good reasons as to why an ISP wouldn't simply use their own diagnostic gear.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked over the article , and now I 'm curious .
The Slashdot crowd usually sides with the techie on incidents like this , but is it really justified here ?
The popular analogy here is that it 's akin to charging gun manufacturers with murder .
Guns have legitimate uses , such as hunting , or protection .
What legitimate use does a modem hacked/modified to access an ISP 's services without permission have ?
A better analogy here would be a gun manufacturer who sells a gun , a kit to turn the gun into an automatic weapon , and detailed instructions on how to get past the security of a specific bank .
You can argue that the gun was n't sold with the intent to facilitate a robbery , but you ca n't do it with a straight face.Of course , I 'm open-minded , so someone prove me wrong - tell me what legitimate uses these modified modems have .
( Caveat : the use Harris suggested in the article wo n't fly , unless you can give some very good reasons as to why an ISP would n't simply use their own diagnostic gear .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked over the article, and now I'm curious.
The Slashdot crowd usually sides with the techie on incidents like this, but is it really justified here?
The popular analogy here is that it's akin to charging gun manufacturers with murder.
Guns have legitimate uses, such as hunting, or protection.
What legitimate use does a modem hacked/modified to access an ISP's services without permission have?
A better analogy here would be a gun manufacturer who sells a gun, a kit to turn the gun into an automatic weapon, and detailed instructions on how to get past the security of a specific bank.
You can argue that the gun wasn't sold with the intent to facilitate a robbery, but you can't do it with a straight face.Of course, I'm open-minded, so someone prove me wrong - tell me what legitimate uses these modified modems have.
(Caveat: the use Harris suggested in the article won't fly, unless you can give some very good reasons as to why an ISP wouldn't simply use their own diagnostic gear.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963140</id>
	<title>He did nothing wrong.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1257262080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacked hardware is nothing without a user.  Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated, or even worse, assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared isn't being shared legitimately (and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacked hardware is nothing without a user .
Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated , or even worse , assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared is n't being shared legitimately ( and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacked hardware is nothing without a user.
Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated, or even worse, assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared isn't being shared legitimately (and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960964</id>
	<title>Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?</title>
	<author>Roland Deschene</author>
	<datestamp>1257281340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why is this in the "your rights online" section? It has nothing to do with rights.</p><p>Of course it does.  If you will scroll back, you will see all kinds of posts discussing why, and why not, the modem hacker had or had no right to do as he did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why is this in the " your rights online " section ?
It has nothing to do with rights.Of course it does .
If you will scroll back , you will see all kinds of posts discussing why , and why not , the modem hacker had or had no right to do as he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why is this in the "your rights online" section?
It has nothing to do with rights.Of course it does.
If you will scroll back, you will see all kinds of posts discussing why, and why not, the modem hacker had or had no right to do as he did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966550</id>
	<title>Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have two things.</p><p>1) I have no idea where you are getting that he "used to" do anything criminal.  The article says nothing of the sort.  I could not find ANYTHING that said anything close to that online.</p><p>2) HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED!?</p><p>Did you even RTFA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have two things.1 ) I have no idea where you are getting that he " used to " do anything criminal .
The article says nothing of the sort .
I could not find ANYTHING that said anything close to that online.2 ) HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED !
? Did you even RTFA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have two things.1) I have no idea where you are getting that he "used to" do anything criminal.
The article says nothing of the sort.
I could not find ANYTHING that said anything close to that online.2) HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED!
?Did you even RTFA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959826</id>
	<title>Prosecution haggling?</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1257183420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"They&rsquo;re filling in their own blanks."</p></div><p>Is this a way to haggle up the punishment? Make the defense spend valuable time worrying about completely bogus prosecution claims, and it might neglect other more legitimate claims.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They    re filling in their own blanks .
" Is this a way to haggle up the punishment ?
Make the defense spend valuable time worrying about completely bogus prosecution claims , and it might neglect other more legitimate claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They’re filling in their own blanks.
"Is this a way to haggle up the punishment?
Make the defense spend valuable time worrying about completely bogus prosecution claims, and it might neglect other more legitimate claims.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960122</id>
	<title>Paperwork infraction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are so many laws on the books, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is <i>not</i> a criminal.
<br>
<br>
Not to be paranoid, but that's the way <i>the man</i> wants it. You are all guilty of something, so you can be rounded up, if <i>they</i> deem it necessary.
<br>
<br>
It sure would be a lot simpler if you just categorized crimes into various logical levels (rather than political levels) and meted out justice accordingly.
<br>
<br>
This case doesn't seem like much of a "real crime", more of a civil annoyance. Here is a first hack at the scale of "crimes":
<br>
<br>
Victimless crimes. (e.g. Drugs - if you have a problem, let's offer help, not expensive law enforcement and jail.)
<br>
<br>
civil annoyance - pay a fine (parking violations, let your dog crap on the sidewalk, etc.)
<br>
<br>
small, medium, large screw ups - crimes of opportunity, stupidity, and passion. Typically one-off crimes. Fines and jail sentences of varying lengths. Some hope of offenders seeing the error of their ways.
<br>
<br>
Bad People - this person needs to be put down, like a rabid animal. Purposeful injury of another. I don't care about the motive. If you fuck up someone else on purpose, we don't need you.
<br>
<br>
There should be no thought crimes. If you harm someone, let's put you down. I don't care if it was a "hate" crime or robbery for profit. If you are capable of that crime, I don't care why. If you have a sawed off shotgun that is 1" too short to be legal, what do I care? Not a crime. Use it on an innocent person, off with your head, just as if you had used a legal baseball bat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many laws on the books , you 'd be hard pressed to find someone who is not a criminal .
Not to be paranoid , but that 's the way the man wants it .
You are all guilty of something , so you can be rounded up , if they deem it necessary .
It sure would be a lot simpler if you just categorized crimes into various logical levels ( rather than political levels ) and meted out justice accordingly .
This case does n't seem like much of a " real crime " , more of a civil annoyance .
Here is a first hack at the scale of " crimes " : Victimless crimes .
( e.g. Drugs - if you have a problem , let 's offer help , not expensive law enforcement and jail .
) civil annoyance - pay a fine ( parking violations , let your dog crap on the sidewalk , etc .
) small , medium , large screw ups - crimes of opportunity , stupidity , and passion .
Typically one-off crimes .
Fines and jail sentences of varying lengths .
Some hope of offenders seeing the error of their ways .
Bad People - this person needs to be put down , like a rabid animal .
Purposeful injury of another .
I do n't care about the motive .
If you fuck up someone else on purpose , we do n't need you .
There should be no thought crimes .
If you harm someone , let 's put you down .
I do n't care if it was a " hate " crime or robbery for profit .
If you are capable of that crime , I do n't care why .
If you have a sawed off shotgun that is 1 " too short to be legal , what do I care ?
Not a crime .
Use it on an innocent person , off with your head , just as if you had used a legal baseball bat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many laws on the books, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is not a criminal.
Not to be paranoid, but that's the way the man wants it.
You are all guilty of something, so you can be rounded up, if they deem it necessary.
It sure would be a lot simpler if you just categorized crimes into various logical levels (rather than political levels) and meted out justice accordingly.
This case doesn't seem like much of a "real crime", more of a civil annoyance.
Here is a first hack at the scale of "crimes":


Victimless crimes.
(e.g. Drugs - if you have a problem, let's offer help, not expensive law enforcement and jail.
)


civil annoyance - pay a fine (parking violations, let your dog crap on the sidewalk, etc.
)


small, medium, large screw ups - crimes of opportunity, stupidity, and passion.
Typically one-off crimes.
Fines and jail sentences of varying lengths.
Some hope of offenders seeing the error of their ways.
Bad People - this person needs to be put down, like a rabid animal.
Purposeful injury of another.
I don't care about the motive.
If you fuck up someone else on purpose, we don't need you.
There should be no thought crimes.
If you harm someone, let's put you down.
I don't care if it was a "hate" crime or robbery for profit.
If you are capable of that crime, I don't care why.
If you have a sawed off shotgun that is 1" too short to be legal, what do I care?
Not a crime.
Use it on an innocent person, off with your head, just as if you had used a legal baseball bat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973628</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1257270540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo!!! Sir I am pleased to find a fellow slashdotter that knows what the 2nd amendment is and that it is part of the bill of rights!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo ! ! !
Sir I am pleased to find a fellow slashdotter that knows what the 2nd amendment is and that it is part of the bill of rights !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo!!!
Sir I am pleased to find a fellow slashdotter that knows what the 2nd amendment is and that it is part of the bill of rights!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964704</id>
	<title>Taking the lead from DirecTV's lawyers?</title>
	<author>Rastl</author>
	<datestamp>1257269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I hate linking to blogs <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6402" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">SecurityFocus</a> [securityfocus.com] seems to have the most detailed story on the DirecTV lawsuits against anyone and everyone who ever bought a smart card writer.  Their reasoning seems to be "People use smart card writers to pirate our service therefore everyone who purchases a smart card writer is doing so to pirate our services."</p><p>Good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I hate linking to blogs SecurityFocus [ securityfocus.com ] seems to have the most detailed story on the DirecTV lawsuits against anyone and everyone who ever bought a smart card writer .
Their reasoning seems to be " People use smart card writers to pirate our service therefore everyone who purchases a smart card writer is doing so to pirate our services .
" Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I hate linking to blogs SecurityFocus [securityfocus.com] seems to have the most detailed story on the DirecTV lawsuits against anyone and everyone who ever bought a smart card writer.
Their reasoning seems to be "People use smart card writers to pirate our service therefore everyone who purchases a smart card writer is doing so to pirate our services.
"Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960480</id>
	<title>Arrest this guy!</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1257189300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's obviously running one of those hacked, uncapped cable modems!</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's obviously running one of those hacked , uncapped cable modems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's obviously running one of those hacked, uncapped cable modems!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966616</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257278100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits."</p><p>This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement, and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies.  Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime, there's a practical matter - <i>small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition, and always has been</i>.  This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.</p><p>Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing: Winchester, Smith and Wesson, Remington, Colt, Marlin, Harrington &amp; Richardson, etc.  The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point, or multiple times, or been bought out under financial duress.  Ruger is a notable exception, but it's not like they make money hand over fist.  Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines, and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection.  One of the best handgun designs of all time, the Colt model 1911, is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by <b>dozens</b> of companies.  Profit margins are slim, to say the least.</p><p>The second failure is the nature of the product.  The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure, or by hiding the risks in using a product.  But with firearms, that is being turned on it's head - the makers are being sued, not because their products fail, but because they <i>succeed</i>.  When a firearm works correctly, someone or something is damaged - it's just not the user.  And, as much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner.  So the gun manufacturer's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to.  Can people use them for illegal means?  Sure - they can also use VCR's for copyright infringement.  <i>Sony</i> put paid to that, and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits.  So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted (again), Congress stepped in.</p><p>The third failure is connected with the first two, in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers.  First, you have the True Believers.  The product is bad, and should be banned.  But not being able to achieve an outright ban, they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business, in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well.  The problem is that <i>the company is not the product</i>!.  If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said "Fuck it - we quit", that wouldn't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes.  The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company, WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies, and people just keep smoking.  Same with guns.  The second group I'll call "The Pragmatists". These people believe that an outright ban isn't going to happen, so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute, and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace.  For Tobacco, they seem to have succeeded: tobacco companies still exist, and cigarettes still exist, but now they are regulated under a "regime" that's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed, not being allowed to use certain advertisements, while the "settlement" money has been pissed away by the complainants.</p><p>The Pragmatists had another "success" with the gun lawsuits, although I'm not sure they'd call it that.  Smith &amp; Wesson, under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition, settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation, ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product (hint - NONE of S&amp;W's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea.)  In return, they were prom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits .
" This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement , and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies .
Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime , there 's a practical matter - small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition , and always has been .
This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing : Winchester , Smith and Wesson , Remington , Colt , Marlin , Harrington &amp; Richardson , etc .
The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point , or multiple times , or been bought out under financial duress .
Ruger is a notable exception , but it 's not like they make money hand over fist .
Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines , and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection .
One of the best handgun designs of all time , the Colt model 1911 , is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by dozens of companies .
Profit margins are slim , to say the least.The second failure is the nature of the product .
The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure , or by hiding the risks in using a product .
But with firearms , that is being turned on it 's head - the makers are being sued , not because their products fail , but because they succeed .
When a firearm works correctly , someone or something is damaged - it 's just not the user .
And , as much as people do n't want to admit it , a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner .
So the gun manufacturer 's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to .
Can people use them for illegal means ?
Sure - they can also use VCR 's for copyright infringement .
Sony put paid to that , and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits .
So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted ( again ) , Congress stepped in.The third failure is connected with the first two , in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers .
First , you have the True Believers .
The product is bad , and should be banned .
But not being able to achieve an outright ban , they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business , in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well .
The problem is that the company is not the product ! .
If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said " Fuck it - we quit " , that would n't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes .
The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company , WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies , and people just keep smoking .
Same with guns .
The second group I 'll call " The Pragmatists " .
These people believe that an outright ban is n't going to happen , so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute , and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace .
For Tobacco , they seem to have succeeded : tobacco companies still exist , and cigarettes still exist , but now they are regulated under a " regime " that 's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed , not being allowed to use certain advertisements , while the " settlement " money has been pissed away by the complainants.The Pragmatists had another " success " with the gun lawsuits , although I 'm not sure they 'd call it that .
Smith &amp; Wesson , under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition , settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation , ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product ( hint - NONE of S&amp;W 's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea .
) In return , they were prom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits.
"This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement, and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies.
Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime, there's a practical matter - small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition, and always has been.
This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing: Winchester, Smith and Wesson, Remington, Colt, Marlin, Harrington &amp; Richardson, etc.
The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point, or multiple times, or been bought out under financial duress.
Ruger is a notable exception, but it's not like they make money hand over fist.
Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines, and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection.
One of the best handgun designs of all time, the Colt model 1911, is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by dozens of companies.
Profit margins are slim, to say the least.The second failure is the nature of the product.
The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure, or by hiding the risks in using a product.
But with firearms, that is being turned on it's head - the makers are being sued, not because their products fail, but because they succeed.
When a firearm works correctly, someone or something is damaged - it's just not the user.
And, as much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner.
So the gun manufacturer's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to.
Can people use them for illegal means?
Sure - they can also use VCR's for copyright infringement.
Sony put paid to that, and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits.
So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted (again), Congress stepped in.The third failure is connected with the first two, in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers.
First, you have the True Believers.
The product is bad, and should be banned.
But not being able to achieve an outright ban, they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business, in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well.
The problem is that the company is not the product!.
If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said "Fuck it - we quit", that wouldn't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes.
The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company, WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies, and people just keep smoking.
Same with guns.
The second group I'll call "The Pragmatists".
These people believe that an outright ban isn't going to happen, so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute, and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace.
For Tobacco, they seem to have succeeded: tobacco companies still exist, and cigarettes still exist, but now they are regulated under a "regime" that's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed, not being allowed to use certain advertisements, while the "settlement" money has been pissed away by the complainants.The Pragmatists had another "success" with the gun lawsuits, although I'm not sure they'd call it that.
Smith &amp; Wesson, under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition, settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation, ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product (hint - NONE of S&amp;W's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea.
)  In return, they were prom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960650</id>
	<title>Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA. He ceased criminal activities long ago and now simply sells the unlocked routers. They got him on conspiracy and aiding and abetting computer intrusion and wire fraud because someone bought a router from his group's site and used it to get unlawful access to internet. The biggest piece of evidence beside all that is a post he made on his forum asking for a valid MAC address. Supposedly, just because he (allegedly) asked for the MAC add, he committed all 6 crimes he was convicted of. That's bullshit, he's fighting it and I would too. Definitely a "your rights' issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
He ceased criminal activities long ago and now simply sells the unlocked routers .
They got him on conspiracy and aiding and abetting computer intrusion and wire fraud because someone bought a router from his group 's site and used it to get unlawful access to internet .
The biggest piece of evidence beside all that is a post he made on his forum asking for a valid MAC address .
Supposedly , just because he ( allegedly ) asked for the MAC add , he committed all 6 crimes he was convicted of .
That 's bullshit , he 's fighting it and I would too .
Definitely a " your rights ' issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
He ceased criminal activities long ago and now simply sells the unlocked routers.
They got him on conspiracy and aiding and abetting computer intrusion and wire fraud because someone bought a router from his group's site and used it to get unlawful access to internet.
The biggest piece of evidence beside all that is a post he made on his forum asking for a valid MAC address.
Supposedly, just because he (allegedly) asked for the MAC add, he committed all 6 crimes he was convicted of.
That's bullshit, he's fighting it and I would too.
Definitely a "your rights' issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961798</id>
	<title>Re:Not criminal? Prove it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these 'hacked' firmwares are based off of shelled diagnostic modems rented from major manufacturers, namely Motorola. These are the exact same tools DOCSIS engineers use on the field or when initially deploying networks, so there is very much a case for legitimate usage of diagnostic modems. What derengel and others have done is highlight the specific features that aid theft of service in a simple web interface for end users. While it's definitely a grey area, it's sole purpose cannot be entirely considered malicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these 'hacked ' firmwares are based off of shelled diagnostic modems rented from major manufacturers , namely Motorola .
These are the exact same tools DOCSIS engineers use on the field or when initially deploying networks , so there is very much a case for legitimate usage of diagnostic modems .
What derengel and others have done is highlight the specific features that aid theft of service in a simple web interface for end users .
While it 's definitely a grey area , it 's sole purpose can not be entirely considered malicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these 'hacked' firmwares are based off of shelled diagnostic modems rented from major manufacturers, namely Motorola.
These are the exact same tools DOCSIS engineers use on the field or when initially deploying networks, so there is very much a case for legitimate usage of diagnostic modems.
What derengel and others have done is highlight the specific features that aid theft of service in a simple web interface for end users.
While it's definitely a grey area, it's sole purpose cannot be entirely considered malicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959726</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1257182580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah - wow - I'm so impressed.<br> <br>Or am I?<br> <br>Nope - I was wrong, I'm not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - wow - I 'm so impressed .
Or am I ?
Nope - I was wrong , I 'm not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - wow - I'm so impressed.
Or am I?
Nope - I was wrong, I'm not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29976310</id>
	<title>ifhe is a hacker</title>
	<author>ticktickboom</author>
	<datestamp>1256993160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if he is a hacker, then anyone who changes thier OS is a hacker.  or writes a script.  or knows anything bout IRC or telnet.</p><p>they should get the meaning of the word so it doesnt include everyone on earth....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if he is a hacker , then anyone who changes thier OS is a hacker .
or writes a script .
or knows anything bout IRC or telnet.they should get the meaning of the word so it doesnt include everyone on earth... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if he is a hacker, then anyone who changes thier OS is a hacker.
or writes a script.
or knows anything bout IRC or telnet.they should get the meaning of the word so it doesnt include everyone on earth....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967190</id>
	<title>The last laugh</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1257281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.</i> </p><p>When a federal judge says "ten years" you serve ten years.</p><p>That makes your first felony conviction something to be avoided.</p><p> The second will be even costlier.</p><p>Tech changes. Skills erode. The geek in prison is a declining asset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again .
When a federal judge says " ten years " you serve ten years.That makes your first felony conviction something to be avoided .
The second will be even costlier.Tech changes .
Skills erode .
The geek in prison is a declining asset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.
When a federal judge says "ten years" you serve ten years.That makes your first felony conviction something to be avoided.
The second will be even costlier.Tech changes.
Skills erode.
The geek in prison is a declining asset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454</id>
	<title>What's this have to do with my rights online?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this in the "your rights online" section? It has nothing to do with rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this in the " your rights online " section ?
It has nothing to do with rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this in the "your rights online" section?
It has nothing to do with rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959924</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257184080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I was about to retort saying it's like arresting marijuana dealers.
</p><p>
But then after a bit of thinking.. I realized... they too have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing the government will not interfere with their profits.
</p><p>
In this case, lobbying to keep it illegal.
(Making it legal interferes with their profits, since it reduces the price, and makes it easier for new competitors to emerge)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to retort saying it 's like arresting marijuana dealers .
But then after a bit of thinking.. I realized... they too have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing the government will not interfere with their profits .
In this case , lobbying to keep it illegal .
( Making it legal interferes with their profits , since it reduces the price , and makes it easier for new competitors to emerge )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I was about to retort saying it's like arresting marijuana dealers.
But then after a bit of thinking.. I realized... they too have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing the government will not interfere with their profits.
In this case, lobbying to keep it illegal.
(Making it legal interferes with their profits, since it reduces the price, and makes it easier for new competitors to emerge)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960616</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257190620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he was doing is more akin to modifying your debit card so it lets you withdraw from other people's bank accounts.  Of course, there is infinite supply of 0s and 1s, and a finite supply of money (although the US Treasury seems to be doing all they can to change that!)</p><p>It's curious that the security in the system is assigned not within the system itself, but to the end user's hardware... that seems just plan lazy, and implies that what they are selling isn't worth enough to really bother securing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he was doing is more akin to modifying your debit card so it lets you withdraw from other people 's bank accounts .
Of course , there is infinite supply of 0s and 1s , and a finite supply of money ( although the US Treasury seems to be doing all they can to change that !
) It 's curious that the security in the system is assigned not within the system itself , but to the end user 's hardware... that seems just plan lazy , and implies that what they are selling is n't worth enough to really bother securing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he was doing is more akin to modifying your debit card so it lets you withdraw from other people's bank accounts.
Of course, there is infinite supply of 0s and 1s, and a finite supply of money (although the US Treasury seems to be doing all they can to change that!
)It's curious that the security in the system is assigned not within the system itself, but to the end user's hardware... that seems just plan lazy, and implies that what they are selling isn't worth enough to really bother securing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961522</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>Martin Soto</author>
	<datestamp>1257247260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great post! If you'd replace "its" by "it's", it'd be perfect...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post !
If you 'd replace " its " by " it 's " , it 'd be perfect.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post!
If you'd replace "its" by "it's", it'd be perfect...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29972968</id>
	<title>Re:Not criminal? Prove it.</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257264960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is like saying white hats have no use. Of course his studies have a use. I know TONS about the cmts on I'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support, 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in?' Instead I could be like, 'so you know. Channel 3 is down in the area right now. Could be a bad wire out on the road. You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here. Maybe the cmts is down? And BAM I've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is like saying white hats have no use .
Of course his studies have a use .
I know TONS about the cmts on I 'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support , 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in ?
' Instead I could be like , 'so you know .
Channel 3 is down in the area right now .
Could be a bad wire out on the road .
You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here .
Maybe the cmts is down ?
And BAM I 've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is like saying white hats have no use.
Of course his studies have a use.
I know TONS about the cmts on I'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support, 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in?
' Instead I could be like, 'so you know.
Channel 3 is down in the area right now.
Could be a bad wire out on the road.
You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here.
Maybe the cmts is down?
And BAM I've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>WilliamX</author>
	<datestamp>1257186060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing.  Morally and legally.
<p>
And the argument that just because (fill in the blank) is going on and is much more serious, we shouldn't prosecuted lesser crimes...well, that's not exactly logical or desirable either.
</p><p>
Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier, just because we have bank robberies going on, does that mean police shouldn't arrest shoplifters?  If it was my music store, I'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me.
</p><p>
Now, do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers?
</p><p>
Absolutely not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is , in fact , stealing .
Morally and legally .
And the argument that just because ( fill in the blank ) is going on and is much more serious , we should n't prosecuted lesser crimes...well , that 's not exactly logical or desirable either .
Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier , just because we have bank robberies going on , does that mean police should n't arrest shoplifters ?
If it was my music store , I 'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me .
Now , do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers ?
Absolutely not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing.
Morally and legally.
And the argument that just because (fill in the blank) is going on and is much more serious, we shouldn't prosecuted lesser crimes...well, that's not exactly logical or desirable either.
Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier, just because we have bank robberies going on, does that mean police shouldn't arrest shoplifters?
If it was my music store, I'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me.
Now, do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers?
Absolutely not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962888</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing to do with anything but money and making an example of people able to think outside the box.  Instead of learning and fixing their flaws they have found a scapegoat and are now trying to skin him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to do with anything but money and making an example of people able to think outside the box .
Instead of learning and fixing their flaws they have found a scapegoat and are now trying to skin him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to do with anything but money and making an example of people able to think outside the box.
Instead of learning and fixing their flaws they have found a scapegoat and are now trying to skin him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960920</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257280860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."</p><p>Guilty plea in 3...2...1...</p><p>(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)</p></div><p>I went to high school with Harris.  This isn't his first stint in federal prison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'll tell you right now I 'm not going to plead guilty .
" Guilty plea in 3...2...1... ( should n't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons , and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison ) I went to high school with Harris .
This is n't his first stint in federal prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty.
"Guilty plea in 3...2...1...(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)I went to high school with Harris.
This isn't his first stint in federal prison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959892</id>
	<title>Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."</p><p>Guilty plea in 3...2...1...</p><p>(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'll tell you right now I 'm not going to plead guilty .
" Guilty plea in 3...2...1... ( should n't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons , and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty.
"Guilty plea in 3...2...1...(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959748</id>
	<title>What!?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1257182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA. If I read the summary right, ya may be he can be charged with DMCA, Copyright violation or those stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.But "conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud"? WTF is that!</p><p>It's like charging gunmaker with murder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA .
If I read the summary right , ya may be he can be charged with DMCA , Copyright violation or those stuff .But " conspiracy , aiding and abetting computer intrusion , and wire fraud " ?
WTF is that ! It 's like charging gunmaker with murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA.
If I read the summary right, ya may be he can be charged with DMCA, Copyright violation or those stuff .But "conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud"?
WTF is that!It's like charging gunmaker with murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962108</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1257254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention the second amendment.  Its kind of part of the bill of rights.</p></div><p>Provided the Supreme Court agrees that it is in the Chicago case this term</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the second amendment .
Its kind of part of the bill of rights.Provided the Supreme Court agrees that it is in the Chicago case this term</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the second amendment.
Its kind of part of the bill of rights.Provided the Supreme Court agrees that it is in the Chicago case this term
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964356</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1257267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to rent their equipment. I bought my modem for use on their networks. They just log the mac addy and mark it in their systems as user owned. (granted one of their techs stole it and replaced it with a rental, but that's offtopic...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to rent their equipment .
I bought my modem for use on their networks .
They just log the mac addy and mark it in their systems as user owned .
( granted one of their techs stole it and replaced it with a rental , but that 's offtopic... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to rent their equipment.
I bought my modem for use on their networks.
They just log the mac addy and mark it in their systems as user owned.
(granted one of their techs stole it and replaced it with a rental, but that's offtopic...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960522</id>
	<title>Moterola's fault.</title>
	<author>dsavi</author>
	<datestamp>1257189660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Moterola's fault for making such a crappy device that the firmware can be bypassed like that. And once it's possible, it has to be done, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Moterola 's fault for making such a crappy device that the firmware can be bypassed like that .
And once it 's possible , it has to be done , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Moterola's fault for making such a crappy device that the firmware can be bypassed like that.
And once it's possible, it has to be done, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960278</id>
	<title>Does anyone else remember LaMacchia?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257187200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look back to the old David LaMacchia case, the FBI tried to convict someone running a secretive FSP site on school computers of conspiracy and software theft. It was obvious he was guilty as sin at running a pirate software site, but because he received no money for it (merely stole school resources of bandwidth and computer time), they failed miserably to convict him.</p><p>This idiot, according to the FBI, asked on a bulletin board for the necessary MAC addresses for the Phoenix Arizona area. That was inviting illegal behavior. This is why I don't even make \_jokes\_ like that about pirating software or computer cracking: because I've explained to people how easy it is to do, I have to keep my nose clean lest someone testify against me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look back to the old David LaMacchia case , the FBI tried to convict someone running a secretive FSP site on school computers of conspiracy and software theft .
It was obvious he was guilty as sin at running a pirate software site , but because he received no money for it ( merely stole school resources of bandwidth and computer time ) , they failed miserably to convict him.This idiot , according to the FBI , asked on a bulletin board for the necessary MAC addresses for the Phoenix Arizona area .
That was inviting illegal behavior .
This is why I do n't even make \ _jokes \ _ like that about pirating software or computer cracking : because I 've explained to people how easy it is to do , I have to keep my nose clean lest someone testify against me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look back to the old David LaMacchia case, the FBI tried to convict someone running a secretive FSP site on school computers of conspiracy and software theft.
It was obvious he was guilty as sin at running a pirate software site, but because he received no money for it (merely stole school resources of bandwidth and computer time), they failed miserably to convict him.This idiot, according to the FBI, asked on a bulletin board for the necessary MAC addresses for the Phoenix Arizona area.
That was inviting illegal behavior.
This is why I don't even make \_jokes\_ like that about pirating software or computer cracking: because I've explained to people how easy it is to do, I have to keep my nose clean lest someone testify against me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960230</id>
	<title>smart guy, good book, ISPs commit the real fraud</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1257186780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading his book a little bit at a time, very interesting and informative.  I don't really see how this is illegal unless you pull a DMCA on it since he is not defrauding anyone.  The people he sells these to might be defrauding their ISP.  Truth be told I'm more inclined to agree with the position that the real fraud here is the completely artificial pricing schemes and complete scam that is provisioning [not remotely based on the real (physical) limitations of the connection technology] enabled by regional monopolies and a virtual lack of competition in the ISP market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading his book a little bit at a time , very interesting and informative .
I do n't really see how this is illegal unless you pull a DMCA on it since he is not defrauding anyone .
The people he sells these to might be defrauding their ISP .
Truth be told I 'm more inclined to agree with the position that the real fraud here is the completely artificial pricing schemes and complete scam that is provisioning [ not remotely based on the real ( physical ) limitations of the connection technology ] enabled by regional monopolies and a virtual lack of competition in the ISP market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading his book a little bit at a time, very interesting and informative.
I don't really see how this is illegal unless you pull a DMCA on it since he is not defrauding anyone.
The people he sells these to might be defrauding their ISP.
Truth be told I'm more inclined to agree with the position that the real fraud here is the completely artificial pricing schemes and complete scam that is provisioning [not remotely based on the real (physical) limitations of the connection technology] enabled by regional monopolies and a virtual lack of competition in the ISP market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967412</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1257239160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."</i></p><p>Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, and our spy satellites as the Constitution "only" grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were n't , then I 'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now : discarded as being " inconvenient .
" Yes , I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force , NORAD , the CIA , the NSA , and our spy satellites as the Constitution " only " grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient.
"Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, and our spy satellites as the Constitution "only" grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964616</id>
	<title>Re:This is not a crime</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257269040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line. That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for. It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities. I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?</p></div><p>Why should they have accountability? Let's use that old "if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want?" argument.   If you walk in and take (modify the modem for better service than you're paying for), you're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft.  It's not their responsibility to lock the front door, it's <b>your</b> responsibility not to walk through it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****. As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time? Some joker modifying cable modems. You gotta be f'ing kidding me.</p></div><p>Apples and oranges, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.  The government, with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers, can multitask.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line .
That 's equipment you pay for and service you pay for .
It 's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities .
I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer , then where 's their accountability ? Why should they have accountability ?
Let 's use that old " if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want ?
" argument .
If you walk in and take ( modify the modem for better service than you 're paying for ) , you 're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft .
It 's not their responsibility to lock the front door , it 's your responsibility not to walk through it.If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing , I 'd still think it was bull * * * * .
As it is , when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches , contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed , terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time ?
Some joker modifying cable modems .
You got ta be f'ing kidding me.Apples and oranges , and completely irrelevant to the discussion .
The government , with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers , can multitask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one time the law and its application are way out of line.
That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for.
It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities.
I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?Why should they have accountability?
Let's use that old "if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want?
" argument.
If you walk in and take (modify the modem for better service than you're paying for), you're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft.
It's not their responsibility to lock the front door, it's your responsibility not to walk through it.If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****.
As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time?
Some joker modifying cable modems.
You gotta be f'ing kidding me.Apples and oranges, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The government, with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers, can multitask.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29969482</id>
	<title>WHat? try about 100</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Federal Prosecutors, with up to 250 assistant Attorneys.</p><p>"Not tens of thousands"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Federal Prosecutors , with up to 250 assistant Attorneys .
" Not tens of thousands "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Federal Prosecutors, with up to 250 assistant Attorneys.
"Not tens of thousands"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961014</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257238860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He will plead guilty. I would bet money on it. The feds throw the book at you and scare you with massive jail time/fines. Follow this story, and mark my words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He will plead guilty .
I would bet money on it .
The feds throw the book at you and scare you with massive jail time/fines .
Follow this story , and mark my words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He will plead guilty.
I would bet money on it.
The feds throw the book at you and scare you with massive jail time/fines.
Follow this story, and mark my words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960472</id>
	<title>Diagnostic cable modems? what happen with some use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diagnostic cable modems? what happen with some use one? Say they got it a garage sale, dumpster, some one gave it them, cable guy ended up with on his truck after some in a warehouse messed up.</p><p>are you risking jail by useing it?</p><p>also what you build a box to get all the channels you pay for one tv and used to get them on all the other tv in your house that is not selling that is getting what you payed for on each tv and is ok under the law as by law cable co all not able to force you to use there hardware what if that box talked to the network in the same as any other cable box and all you are doing is useing your own hardware vs renting the cable box.</p><p>How about cell phones that are unlocked to run on any network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diagnostic cable modems ?
what happen with some use one ?
Say they got it a garage sale , dumpster , some one gave it them , cable guy ended up with on his truck after some in a warehouse messed up.are you risking jail by useing it ? also what you build a box to get all the channels you pay for one tv and used to get them on all the other tv in your house that is not selling that is getting what you payed for on each tv and is ok under the law as by law cable co all not able to force you to use there hardware what if that box talked to the network in the same as any other cable box and all you are doing is useing your own hardware vs renting the cable box.How about cell phones that are unlocked to run on any network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diagnostic cable modems?
what happen with some use one?
Say they got it a garage sale, dumpster, some one gave it them, cable guy ended up with on his truck after some in a warehouse messed up.are you risking jail by useing it?also what you build a box to get all the channels you pay for one tv and used to get them on all the other tv in your house that is not selling that is getting what you payed for on each tv and is ok under the law as by law cable co all not able to force you to use there hardware what if that box talked to the network in the same as any other cable box and all you are doing is useing your own hardware vs renting the cable box.How about cell phones that are unlocked to run on any network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first post!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first post ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29991238</id>
	<title>accessibility enough of a reason to convict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that modified cable modems, just like any other tool, are just that; tools. The modified firmware that ships on modified modems is based off of a diagnostic firmware used by DOCSIS engineers and supplied by Motorola. It is neither inherently good nor evil. Freedom grants us the opportunity for choice and ultimately the choice is that of the recipient and is not predetermined by the supplier.</p><p>My question is, is the fact that his modified web interface highlights features used for theft of service enough to convict?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that modified cable modems , just like any other tool , are just that ; tools .
The modified firmware that ships on modified modems is based off of a diagnostic firmware used by DOCSIS engineers and supplied by Motorola .
It is neither inherently good nor evil .
Freedom grants us the opportunity for choice and ultimately the choice is that of the recipient and is not predetermined by the supplier.My question is , is the fact that his modified web interface highlights features used for theft of service enough to convict ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that modified cable modems, just like any other tool, are just that; tools.
The modified firmware that ships on modified modems is based off of a diagnostic firmware used by DOCSIS engineers and supplied by Motorola.
It is neither inherently good nor evil.
Freedom grants us the opportunity for choice and ultimately the choice is that of the recipient and is not predetermined by the supplier.My question is, is the fact that his modified web interface highlights features used for theft of service enough to convict?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention the second amendment.  Its kind of part of the bill of rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the second amendment .
Its kind of part of the bill of rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the second amendment.
Its kind of part of the bill of rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963504</id>
	<title>Using your own modem is illegal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I signed up for Comcast (a long while ago, I admit) they gave me three options for a cable modem: Rent one of theirs, buy one of theirs, or provide my own. That last option is the key here. If I was allowed to provide my own modem, why wouldn't I be allowed to use a modified one? The way I figure, if Comcast (or any other company) relies on the user's hardware to impose limitations, and they then provide their own hardware that doesn't include the ability to impose such limitations, the user hasn't broken any laws, nor has the provider of the modified modem. The exception to this would be if the agreement with the internet provider states you can't use modified hardware or hardware that can't impose the limitations the require, but even in this case the hardware provider shouldn't be charged only the end user who agreed not to use the hardware. As near as I can figure, this is just another case of America, Inc. using the legal system to support big companies. I'm not a lawyer, or expert in any way shape or form, but it seems to me that two things should happen here: this man should be allowed to walk, and internet providers should start capping bandwidth from their own routers and not the users' hardware. Sure, they might not have the hardware in place to already do this, weren't internet providers supposed to be trying to upgrade our national network infrastructure anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I signed up for Comcast ( a long while ago , I admit ) they gave me three options for a cable modem : Rent one of theirs , buy one of theirs , or provide my own .
That last option is the key here .
If I was allowed to provide my own modem , why would n't I be allowed to use a modified one ?
The way I figure , if Comcast ( or any other company ) relies on the user 's hardware to impose limitations , and they then provide their own hardware that does n't include the ability to impose such limitations , the user has n't broken any laws , nor has the provider of the modified modem .
The exception to this would be if the agreement with the internet provider states you ca n't use modified hardware or hardware that ca n't impose the limitations the require , but even in this case the hardware provider should n't be charged only the end user who agreed not to use the hardware .
As near as I can figure , this is just another case of America , Inc. using the legal system to support big companies .
I 'm not a lawyer , or expert in any way shape or form , but it seems to me that two things should happen here : this man should be allowed to walk , and internet providers should start capping bandwidth from their own routers and not the users ' hardware .
Sure , they might not have the hardware in place to already do this , were n't internet providers supposed to be trying to upgrade our national network infrastructure anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I signed up for Comcast (a long while ago, I admit) they gave me three options for a cable modem: Rent one of theirs, buy one of theirs, or provide my own.
That last option is the key here.
If I was allowed to provide my own modem, why wouldn't I be allowed to use a modified one?
The way I figure, if Comcast (or any other company) relies on the user's hardware to impose limitations, and they then provide their own hardware that doesn't include the ability to impose such limitations, the user hasn't broken any laws, nor has the provider of the modified modem.
The exception to this would be if the agreement with the internet provider states you can't use modified hardware or hardware that can't impose the limitations the require, but even in this case the hardware provider shouldn't be charged only the end user who agreed not to use the hardware.
As near as I can figure, this is just another case of America, Inc. using the legal system to support big companies.
I'm not a lawyer, or expert in any way shape or form, but it seems to me that two things should happen here: this man should be allowed to walk, and internet providers should start capping bandwidth from their own routers and not the users' hardware.
Sure, they might not have the hardware in place to already do this, weren't internet providers supposed to be trying to upgrade our national network infrastructure anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960192</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful.  If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful .
If there were n't , then I 'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now : discarded as being " inconvenient .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful.
If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959708</id>
	<title>I wish I saw this earlier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This information is really useful. He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is really useful .
He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for " education purposes only " sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is really useful.
He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29965620</id>
	<title>Censorship FTL</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257273360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>Wired</em> quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment &mdash; it's complete bull****. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."</p></div><p>You know what else is bullshit? Wired can publish the word "bullshit" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wired quotes Harris 's reaction : " I read the indictment    it 's complete bull * * * * .
I 'll tell you right now I 'm not going to plead guilty .
" You know what else is bullshit ?
Wired can publish the word " bullshit " but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Wired quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment — it's complete bull****.
I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty.
"You know what else is bullshit?
Wired can publish the word "bullshit" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942</id>
	<title>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1257184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.<br>AND i'll teach every damn criminal i can while in there MUHAHAHAHAHA<br>might just teach em more too<br>might as well everyone join the gangs after all WERE ALL CRIMINALS NOW</p><p>imagine if this shit were applied to cars trucks and lets say i dunno<br>harley davidsons OMG REVOLUTION</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.AND i 'll teach every damn criminal i can while in there MUHAHAHAHAHAmight just teach em more toomight as well everyone join the gangs after all WERE ALL CRIMINALS NOWimagine if this shit were applied to cars trucks and lets say i dunnoharley davidsons OMG REVOLUTION</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.AND i'll teach every damn criminal i can while in there MUHAHAHAHAHAmight just teach em more toomight as well everyone join the gangs after all WERE ALL CRIMINALS NOWimagine if this shit were applied to cars trucks and lets say i dunnoharley davidsons OMG REVOLUTION</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967564</id>
	<title>Bandwidth control at the customers site?</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1257239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't it seem that one should place the bandwidth controls at the central office, and not at the customers site?</p><p>You have less control of the uplink (from someones home to the Internet) by placing bandwidth restrictions it at the central office, however you would also have tighter control of the bandwidth from the Internet to the customer.   You also remove the issue where the customer an circumvent your controls because the hardware is in their hands.</p><p>Seems this would also help assist in the problem previously mentioned here about allowing Torrents to use more local bandwidth by allowing more bandwidth between an ISP's customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't it seem that one should place the bandwidth controls at the central office , and not at the customers site ? You have less control of the uplink ( from someones home to the Internet ) by placing bandwidth restrictions it at the central office , however you would also have tighter control of the bandwidth from the Internet to the customer .
You also remove the issue where the customer an circumvent your controls because the hardware is in their hands.Seems this would also help assist in the problem previously mentioned here about allowing Torrents to use more local bandwidth by allowing more bandwidth between an ISP 's customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't it seem that one should place the bandwidth controls at the central office, and not at the customers site?You have less control of the uplink (from someones home to the Internet) by placing bandwidth restrictions it at the central office, however you would also have tighter control of the bandwidth from the Internet to the customer.
You also remove the issue where the customer an circumvent your controls because the hardware is in their hands.Seems this would also help assist in the problem previously mentioned here about allowing Torrents to use more local bandwidth by allowing more bandwidth between an ISP's customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960126</id>
	<title>Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell lunacy is this post?  Ever hear of the second amendment?  The one that protects the first amendment and the other ones in the bill of rights?</p><p>You read about the guy who manufactured his own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 cal rifle, got harassed by the btfa who also got him on creative charges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell lunacy is this post ?
Ever hear of the second amendment ?
The one that protects the first amendment and the other ones in the bill of rights ? You read about the guy who manufactured his own .50 cal rifle , got harassed by the btfa who also got him on creative charges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell lunacy is this post?
Ever hear of the second amendment?
The one that protects the first amendment and the other ones in the bill of rights?You read about the guy who manufactured his own .50 cal rifle, got harassed by the btfa who also got him on creative charges?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962524</id>
	<title>Gun analogy is bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s like arresting every firearms dealer, because handguns can be used to commit murder.&rdquo; This is an AWFUL analogy.</p><p>It's more like selling home power tools (drills, saws, etc), then arresting him because those tools can be used to break into houses. Nobody is going to die because he sold some hacked cable modems. If we continue to let people use terms like pirates, murder, and compare hacking to gun crimes, we do everyone a disservice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   It    s like arresting every firearms dealer , because handguns can be used to commit murder.    This is an AWFUL analogy.It 's more like selling home power tools ( drills , saws , etc ) , then arresting him because those tools can be used to break into houses .
Nobody is going to die because he sold some hacked cable modems .
If we continue to let people use terms like pirates , murder , and compare hacking to gun crimes , we do everyone a disservice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“It’s like arresting every firearms dealer, because handguns can be used to commit murder.” This is an AWFUL analogy.It's more like selling home power tools (drills, saws, etc), then arresting him because those tools can be used to break into houses.
Nobody is going to die because he sold some hacked cable modems.
If we continue to let people use terms like pirates, murder, and compare hacking to gun crimes, we do everyone a disservice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29972968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29969482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_0331227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29965620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29962524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29963504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29966550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29959896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29969482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960484
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961328
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29964356
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29973012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29967986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_0331227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29960166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29961798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_0331227.29972968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
