<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_05_1318230</id>
	<title>Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257428340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FutureDomain writes <i>"A bill which just passed the House Financial Services Committee would require Internet Service Providers to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10390779-38.html">block access to sites hosting financial scams</a> that pose as members of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The bill, called the Investor Protection Act and sponsored by <a href="http://kanjorski.house.gov/">Paul Kanjorski</a> (D-PA), is broad enough to block not only websites, but email and any other 'electronic material.' 'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement &mdash; and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions &mdash; would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FutureDomain writes " A bill which just passed the House Financial Services Committee would require Internet Service Providers to block access to sites hosting financial scams that pose as members of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation ( SIPC ) .
The bill , called the Investor Protection Act and sponsored by Paul Kanjorski ( D-PA ) , is broad enough to block not only websites , but email and any other 'electronic material .
' 'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski 's requirement    and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions    would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FutureDomain writes "A bill which just passed the House Financial Services Committee would require Internet Service Providers to block access to sites hosting financial scams that pose as members of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
The bill, called the Investor Protection Act and sponsored by Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), is broad enough to block not only websites, but email and any other 'electronic material.
' 'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement — and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions — would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996824</id>
	<title>This reminds me of a nice quote...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257446280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>"So this is how democracy dies...with thunderous applause".</em> </p><p>This is exactly what I was thinking when Biden got into the White House.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So this is how democracy dies...with thunderous applause " .
This is exactly what I was thinking when Biden got into the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "So this is how democracy dies...with thunderous applause".
This is exactly what I was thinking when Biden got into the White House.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994644</id>
	<title>Re:Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm House Representative Paul Kanjorski,</p><p>I like candlelit dinners, long walks on the beach, and simplistic solutions to complex problems that I don't really understand.</p><p>XOXO,<br>Paul "K-Bear" Kanjorski</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm House Representative Paul Kanjorski,I like candlelit dinners , long walks on the beach , and simplistic solutions to complex problems that I do n't really understand.XOXO,Paul " K-Bear " Kanjorski</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm House Representative Paul Kanjorski,I like candlelit dinners, long walks on the beach, and simplistic solutions to complex problems that I don't really understand.XOXO,Paul "K-Bear" Kanjorski</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996538</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would net neutrality prohibit ISPs from complying with this?  Or is this a case where the Government would get a special exception because they don't abuse their power the way ISPs do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would net neutrality prohibit ISPs from complying with this ?
Or is this a case where the Government would get a special exception because they do n't abuse their power the way ISPs do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would net neutrality prohibit ISPs from complying with this?
Or is this a case where the Government would get a special exception because they don't abuse their power the way ISPs do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997552</id>
	<title>Oblig.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither .
" - Ben Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
" - Ben Franklin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997182</id>
	<title>First sites to go down for financial scams...</title>
	<author>DevConcepts</author>
	<datestamp>1257448020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whitehouse.gov, house.gov, senate.gov, irs.gov, *.gov</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whitehouse.gov , house.gov , senate.gov , irs.gov , * .gov</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whitehouse.gov, house.gov, senate.gov, irs.gov, *.gov</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994562</id>
	<title>Re:Technical solutions are already out there</title>
	<author>cygtoad</author>
	<datestamp>1257435240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Domain keys?  SPF? <br> <br>

Um, what are those?<br> <br>

Again, what efforts have we made to educate our representatives?  If we leave it up to them they can only act on what knowledge they have.  So isn't this partially our fault too?<br> <br>

It is easy to criticize officials who make blind decisions from the comfort of our keyboards, but we might as well yell at the TV during Monday night football.  The problem is that we are not in the game.  You could argue that we cannot get in the game, but have we tried?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Domain keys ?
SPF ? Um , what are those ?
Again , what efforts have we made to educate our representatives ?
If we leave it up to them they can only act on what knowledge they have .
So is n't this partially our fault too ?
It is easy to criticize officials who make blind decisions from the comfort of our keyboards , but we might as well yell at the TV during Monday night football .
The problem is that we are not in the game .
You could argue that we can not get in the game , but have we tried ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Domain keys?
SPF?  

Um, what are those?
Again, what efforts have we made to educate our representatives?
If we leave it up to them they can only act on what knowledge they have.
So isn't this partially our fault too?
It is easy to criticize officials who make blind decisions from the comfort of our keyboards, but we might as well yell at the TV during Monday night football.
The problem is that we are not in the game.
You could argue that we cannot get in the game, but have we tried?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994912</id>
	<title>Nose of the camel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ISP's could successfully block all fraud sites, why not other sites that the government decides need to be blocked?</p><p>I suspect that's the larger agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISP 's could successfully block all fraud sites , why not other sites that the government decides need to be blocked ? I suspect that 's the larger agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISP's could successfully block all fraud sites, why not other sites that the government decides need to be blocked?I suspect that's the larger agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995088</id>
	<title>Re:OpenDNS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open DNS is shit.<br>They re-route DNS errors to a domain they control instead of properly returning error code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open DNS is shit.They re-route DNS errors to a domain they control instead of properly returning error code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open DNS is shit.They re-route DNS errors to a domain they control instead of properly returning error code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996150</id>
	<title>Better way</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257442980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a better way - go after the fraud sites themselves. ISP blocklists are too messy for the state to involve itself with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a better way - go after the fraud sites themselves .
ISP blocklists are too messy for the state to involve itself with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a better way - go after the fraud sites themselves.
ISP blocklists are too messy for the state to involve itself with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996246</id>
	<title>Re:OpenDNS</title>
	<author>seizurebattlerobot</author>
	<datestamp>1257443400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenDNS is garbage.</p><p>They hijack NXDOMAIN results to provide ads.  They host DNS servers that are farther away (hop-wise) than your ISP's probably are (despite their misleading claims to the contrary).  They censor certain domains and redirect others.  Given that they do all of the above, they probably practice the "industry standard" of selling NXDOMAIN logs to domain squatters.  Anything to make a buck, huh?</p><p>No thanks.  Just because it has the word "Open" in it, doesn't make it a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenDNS is garbage.They hijack NXDOMAIN results to provide ads .
They host DNS servers that are farther away ( hop-wise ) than your ISP 's probably are ( despite their misleading claims to the contrary ) .
They censor certain domains and redirect others .
Given that they do all of the above , they probably practice the " industry standard " of selling NXDOMAIN logs to domain squatters .
Anything to make a buck , huh ? No thanks .
Just because it has the word " Open " in it , does n't make it a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenDNS is garbage.They hijack NXDOMAIN results to provide ads.
They host DNS servers that are farther away (hop-wise) than your ISP's probably are (despite their misleading claims to the contrary).
They censor certain domains and redirect others.
Given that they do all of the above, they probably practice the "industry standard" of selling NXDOMAIN logs to domain squatters.
Anything to make a buck, huh?No thanks.
Just because it has the word "Open" in it, doesn't make it a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995154</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally... the "censorship" tag is applied in a 100\% appropriate context, and not because a corporation refuses to publish apps or something...
<p>
Yes, this is probably a troll - but the sentiment is a valid one. It's frustrating how often people get up in arms about "censorship" from various corporations where they sign up for/agree to the terms in the first place -- kind of waters down the meaning of the term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally... the " censorship " tag is applied in a 100 \ % appropriate context , and not because a corporation refuses to publish apps or something.. . Yes , this is probably a troll - but the sentiment is a valid one .
It 's frustrating how often people get up in arms about " censorship " from various corporations where they sign up for/agree to the terms in the first place -- kind of waters down the meaning of the term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally... the "censorship" tag is applied in a 100\% appropriate context, and not because a corporation refuses to publish apps or something...

Yes, this is probably a troll - but the sentiment is a valid one.
It's frustrating how often people get up in arms about "censorship" from various corporations where they sign up for/agree to the terms in the first place -- kind of waters down the meaning of the term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995988</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They shouldn't be worried. The government almost never passes laws which cannot be enforced. They've got a pretty good grasp on technology.</p></div><p>This law can be enforced easily.  Enforcement =/= blocking sites.  Enforcement == fining/shutting down ISPs who don't block sites.  It's almost a "Don't breathe" law, and enforcement is simple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't be worried .
The government almost never passes laws which can not be enforced .
They 've got a pretty good grasp on technology.This law can be enforced easily .
Enforcement = / = blocking sites .
Enforcement = = fining/shutting down ISPs who do n't block sites .
It 's almost a " Do n't breathe " law , and enforcement is simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't be worried.
The government almost never passes laws which cannot be enforced.
They've got a pretty good grasp on technology.This law can be enforced easily.
Enforcement =/= blocking sites.
Enforcement == fining/shutting down ISPs who don't block sites.
It's almost a "Don't breathe" law, and enforcement is simple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158</id>
	<title>Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1257433080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay gentlemen, let's take a look and see if this bill is ready to become law.
<ul>
<li>Largely unenforceable?  Check.</li><li>Written by people uninformed about the technology involved?  Check.</li><li>Feel-good protectionist law that will only give a false sense of security?  Check.</li><li>Mandates action that may or may not be reasonable?  Check.</li><li>Sets another precedent for controlling what people see see and where they go on the internet?  Check.</li></ul><p>
Well, all the requirements are there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... let's vote.  Any opposed? [gavel] Excellent.
<br> <br>/sarcasm<br> <br>
I am all for stopping fraud, but scammers are far more nimble and inventive than our government, particularly Congress.  This ain't gonna stop them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay gentlemen , let 's take a look and see if this bill is ready to become law .
Largely unenforceable ?
Check.Written by people uninformed about the technology involved ?
Check.Feel-good protectionist law that will only give a false sense of security ?
Check.Mandates action that may or may not be reasonable ?
Check.Sets another precedent for controlling what people see see and where they go on the internet ?
Check . Well , all the requirements are there ... let 's vote .
Any opposed ?
[ gavel ] Excellent .
/sarcasm I am all for stopping fraud , but scammers are far more nimble and inventive than our government , particularly Congress .
This ai n't gon na stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay gentlemen, let's take a look and see if this bill is ready to become law.
Largely unenforceable?
Check.Written by people uninformed about the technology involved?
Check.Feel-good protectionist law that will only give a false sense of security?
Check.Mandates action that may or may not be reasonable?
Check.Sets another precedent for controlling what people see see and where they go on the internet?
Check.
Well, all the requirements are there ... let's vote.
Any opposed?
[gavel] Excellent.
/sarcasm 
I am all for stopping fraud, but scammers are far more nimble and inventive than our government, particularly Congress.
This ain't gonna stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044</id>
	<title>And so it begins...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257432300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US?... I give it <br>
Why don't they just arrest the scammers? Are they in Nigeria and Nigeria won't turn them over? Why don't we send agents abroad to bring them here? Didn't stop us from doing it in Italy to a guy suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US ? .. .
I give it Why do n't they just arrest the scammers ?
Are they in Nigeria and Nigeria wo n't turn them over ?
Why do n't we send agents abroad to bring them here ?
Did n't stop us from doing it in Italy to a guy suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US?...
I give it 
Why don't they just arrest the scammers?
Are they in Nigeria and Nigeria won't turn them over?
Why don't we send agents abroad to bring them here?
Didn't stop us from doing it in Italy to a guy suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996360</id>
	<title>Re:How about a .bank domain</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please mod that guy up! We do indeed need a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bank domain. Well, I don't since I just use the telephone, but most people these days do in fact bank online. A<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bank domain would actually be effective, unlike this legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please mod that guy up !
We do indeed need a .bank domain .
Well , I do n't since I just use the telephone , but most people these days do in fact bank online .
A .bank domain would actually be effective , unlike this legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please mod that guy up!
We do indeed need a .bank domain.
Well, I don't since I just use the telephone, but most people these days do in fact bank online.
A .bank domain would actually be effective, unlike this legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994312</id>
	<title>Durr....</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1257433800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Kanjorski is going full retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Kanjorski is going full retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Kanjorski is going full retard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994358</id>
	<title>But, But, But!</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1257434160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will I contact my investment bank, or get information from the federal reserve if this bill passes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How will I contact my investment bank , or get information from the federal reserve if this bill passes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will I contact my investment bank, or get information from the federal reserve if this bill passes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294</id>
	<title>Rather Continues</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1257433740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This, which is clearly a waste of time if it is technically possible, at all,<br><br>is legislative masturbation,<br><br>it isnt that the Congress has nothing to, re-enact Glass-Steagall, stop naked shorts and credit default swaps<br><br>properly regulate the Fed, SEC and the exchanges;<br><br>Deal with those Too-Big-To-Fail</htmltext>
<tokenext>This , which is clearly a waste of time if it is technically possible , at all,is legislative masturbation,it isnt that the Congress has nothing to , re-enact Glass-Steagall , stop naked shorts and credit default swapsproperly regulate the Fed , SEC and the exchanges ; Deal with those Too-Big-To-Fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, which is clearly a waste of time if it is technically possible, at all,is legislative masturbation,it isnt that the Congress has nothing to, re-enact Glass-Steagall, stop naked shorts and credit default swapsproperly regulate the Fed, SEC and the exchanges;Deal with those Too-Big-To-Fail</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994326</id>
	<title>Tagging:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257433980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote that whomever is tagging YRO posts with democrats stop, and just start using Politicians, or Congresscritters, as the two major American parties have proven themselves to be utterly interchangeable and the partisan tagging only serves to inflame, not further, discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote that whomever is tagging YRO posts with democrats stop , and just start using Politicians , or Congresscritters , as the two major American parties have proven themselves to be utterly interchangeable and the partisan tagging only serves to inflame , not further , discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote that whomever is tagging YRO posts with democrats stop, and just start using Politicians, or Congresscritters, as the two major American parties have proven themselves to be utterly interchangeable and the partisan tagging only serves to inflame, not further, discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994424</id>
	<title>Days of the free internet are finally ending</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257434400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been clear for some time now that it was only a matter of time before the feds began forcing ISP's to block controversial sites (probably with about as much "proof" of wrongdoing as we see in the infamous DMCA takedown notices). It's sad that the days of simply typing in www.thepiratebay.org or even a lot of legitimate sites' URL's and having the site just pop up are coming to an end. From now on out, it's going to be a constant fight between users and their ISP's, with the RIAA/MPAA exclusively deciding which sites we can see or not see. Of course, we<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. clever types can find ways around it, but again, it will be a constant fight from now on (like homebrew on a console or jailbreaking an iPhone, it will be a constant state of we-figure-out-a-new-workaround-they-find-a-way-to-block-it). What a shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been clear for some time now that it was only a matter of time before the feds began forcing ISP 's to block controversial sites ( probably with about as much " proof " of wrongdoing as we see in the infamous DMCA takedown notices ) .
It 's sad that the days of simply typing in www.thepiratebay.org or even a lot of legitimate sites ' URL 's and having the site just pop up are coming to an end .
From now on out , it 's going to be a constant fight between users and their ISP 's , with the RIAA/MPAA exclusively deciding which sites we can see or not see .
Of course , we / .
clever types can find ways around it , but again , it will be a constant fight from now on ( like homebrew on a console or jailbreaking an iPhone , it will be a constant state of we-figure-out-a-new-workaround-they-find-a-way-to-block-it ) .
What a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been clear for some time now that it was only a matter of time before the feds began forcing ISP's to block controversial sites (probably with about as much "proof" of wrongdoing as we see in the infamous DMCA takedown notices).
It's sad that the days of simply typing in www.thepiratebay.org or even a lot of legitimate sites' URL's and having the site just pop up are coming to an end.
From now on out, it's going to be a constant fight between users and their ISP's, with the RIAA/MPAA exclusively deciding which sites we can see or not see.
Of course, we /.
clever types can find ways around it, but again, it will be a constant fight from now on (like homebrew on a console or jailbreaking an iPhone, it will be a constant state of we-figure-out-a-new-workaround-they-find-a-way-to-block-it).
What a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995976</id>
	<title>Re:Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1257442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent comment is reported as pretending to be a member of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).  All ISPs should now block Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent comment is reported as pretending to be a member of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation ( SIPC ) .
All ISPs should now block Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent comment is reported as pretending to be a member of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
All ISPs should now block Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204</id>
	<title>Technical solutions are already out there</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1257433260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things like SPF, and Domain Keys, and signed DNS would all prevent this.  They would all help ensure that emails are coming from who they say they are coming from.</p><p>Instead of "blocking" things, why not force all government agencies to setup SPF and Domain keys, and maybe start signing the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.GOV domain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things like SPF , and Domain Keys , and signed DNS would all prevent this .
They would all help ensure that emails are coming from who they say they are coming from.Instead of " blocking " things , why not force all government agencies to setup SPF and Domain keys , and maybe start signing the .GOV domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things like SPF, and Domain Keys, and signed DNS would all prevent this.
They would all help ensure that emails are coming from who they say they are coming from.Instead of "blocking" things, why not force all government agencies to setup SPF and Domain keys, and maybe start signing the .GOV domain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994802</id>
	<title>How about a .bank domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I don't suggest we have a domain for everything, but ".bank" sounds like a good idea and something useful for that particular industry. Much like you need to be an educational institution to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EDU or a government entity for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.GOV, why not allow only properly registered banks to use a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bank domain, with some checks to ensure they're not scammy duplicates.</p><p>After a year or two, anything not using the ".bank" domain should hopefully raise enough suspicion to become fairly obvious as a scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I do n't suggest we have a domain for everything , but " .bank " sounds like a good idea and something useful for that particular industry .
Much like you need to be an educational institution to use .EDU or a government entity for .GOV , why not allow only properly registered banks to use a .bank domain , with some checks to ensure they 're not scammy duplicates.After a year or two , anything not using the " .bank " domain should hopefully raise enough suspicion to become fairly obvious as a scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I don't suggest we have a domain for everything, but ".bank" sounds like a good idea and something useful for that particular industry.
Much like you need to be an educational institution to use .EDU or a government entity for .GOV, why not allow only properly registered banks to use a .bank domain, with some checks to ensure they're not scammy duplicates.After a year or two, anything not using the ".bank" domain should hopefully raise enough suspicion to become fairly obvious as a scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997656</id>
	<title>Re:good or bad?</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257450300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site...</p></div><p>Except that fraud sites are a genuinely bad thing. This isn't the same as persecuting a group because they are a minority or have an unpopular political opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they came for the fraud sites , I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site...Except that fraud sites are a genuinely bad thing .
This is n't the same as persecuting a group because they are a minority or have an unpopular political opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site...Except that fraud sites are a genuinely bad thing.
This isn't the same as persecuting a group because they are a minority or have an unpopular political opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995006</id>
	<title>Typical well-intentioned idiocy</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1257437520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This clearly violates common-carrier protection, and would require complete monitoring of web-traffic. The idea is, of course, well-intentioned (stop financial scams) - but the actual effects of such a poorly thought-out law would be horrendous. Sort of like the DMCA, Patriot Act and all the other well-intentioned idiocy that has become law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This clearly violates common-carrier protection , and would require complete monitoring of web-traffic .
The idea is , of course , well-intentioned ( stop financial scams ) - but the actual effects of such a poorly thought-out law would be horrendous .
Sort of like the DMCA , Patriot Act and all the other well-intentioned idiocy that has become law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This clearly violates common-carrier protection, and would require complete monitoring of web-traffic.
The idea is, of course, well-intentioned (stop financial scams) - but the actual effects of such a poorly thought-out law would be horrendous.
Sort of like the DMCA, Patriot Act and all the other well-intentioned idiocy that has become law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994816</id>
	<title>Re:Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the most important thing:</p><p>We have to give it a cutesy acronym. You can't vote on a law without a cutesy acronym.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the most important thing : We have to give it a cutesy acronym .
You ca n't vote on a law without a cutesy acronym .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the most important thing:We have to give it a cutesy acronym.
You can't vote on a law without a cutesy acronym.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994702</id>
	<title>Re:Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1257435900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>/sarcasm</p></div></blockquote><p>How are we supposed to take you seriously when your tags are unbalanced???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>/sarcasmHow are we supposed to take you seriously when your tags are unbalanced ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/sarcasmHow are we supposed to take you seriously when your tags are unbalanced??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994628</id>
	<title>Re:One thing to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they going to block the IRS website, a bigger bunch of fraudsters you could not find (maybe).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to block the IRS website , a bigger bunch of fraudsters you could not find ( maybe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to block the IRS website, a bigger bunch of fraudsters you could not find (maybe).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268</id>
	<title>Re:good or bad?</title>
	<author>kungfugleek</author>
	<datestamp>1257433680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site....</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they came for the fraud sites , I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994190</id>
	<title>Re:OpenDNS</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1257433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would that do anything if they blocked IPs?  Sure, there's always a way around all of this, but the question is if you give them an inch, do they take a mile?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that do anything if they blocked IPs ?
Sure , there 's always a way around all of this , but the question is if you give them an inch , do they take a mile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that do anything if they blocked IPs?
Sure, there's always a way around all of this, but the question is if you give them an inch, do they take a mile?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994412</id>
	<title>Why not all spam?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1257434400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pass a law saying the ISPs must block all spam, problem solved. Next, they should make them block all viruses as well. Wow, I never thought it would be this easy. Block any discussion of terrorist acts as well, and all pictures of ugly women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pass a law saying the ISPs must block all spam , problem solved .
Next , they should make them block all viruses as well .
Wow , I never thought it would be this easy .
Block any discussion of terrorist acts as well , and all pictures of ugly women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pass a law saying the ISPs must block all spam, problem solved.
Next, they should make them block all viruses as well.
Wow, I never thought it would be this easy.
Block any discussion of terrorist acts as well, and all pictures of ugly women.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994870</id>
	<title>Democrats declare gop.org a scam site</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this happen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this happen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995756</id>
	<title>Re:Bill-writing checklist:</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257441240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's an Intercal programmer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's an Intercal programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's an Intercal programmer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995878</id>
	<title>I'm disappointed, but not surprised</title>
	<author>efalk</author>
	<datestamp>1257441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not happy to see more government interference in the internet, but I think the ISPs have this coming.  Spam and online fraud exists because the ISPs choose to tolerate it.  If they would do the right thing and get rid of their bad-actor customers, the government wouldn't need to get involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not happy to see more government interference in the internet , but I think the ISPs have this coming .
Spam and online fraud exists because the ISPs choose to tolerate it .
If they would do the right thing and get rid of their bad-actor customers , the government would n't need to get involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not happy to see more government interference in the internet, but I think the ISPs have this coming.
Spam and online fraud exists because the ISPs choose to tolerate it.
If they would do the right thing and get rid of their bad-actor customers, the government wouldn't need to get involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997446</id>
	<title>Re:good or bad?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1257449460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they came for the murderers, I did not speak up because I was not a murderer.<br>Then they came for the rapists, I did not speak up because I was not a rapist.</p><p>Wait, what were we talking about again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the murderers , I did not speak up because I was not a murderer.Then they came for the rapists , I did not speak up because I was not a rapist.Wait , what were we talking about again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the murderers, I did not speak up because I was not a murderer.Then they came for the rapists, I did not speak up because I was not a rapist.Wait, what were we talking about again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028</id>
	<title>good or bad?</title>
	<author>MeatBag PussRocket</author>
	<datestamp>1257432240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on the surface i see this as good, nobody likes being scammed, but things always get out of hand and this i fear may start down a slippery slope of censorship.</p><p>and i'd really miss all the Nigerian prince jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on the surface i see this as good , nobody likes being scammed , but things always get out of hand and this i fear may start down a slippery slope of censorship.and i 'd really miss all the Nigerian prince jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on the surface i see this as good, nobody likes being scammed, but things always get out of hand and this i fear may start down a slippery slope of censorship.and i'd really miss all the Nigerian prince jokes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995854</id>
	<title>Re:Technical solutions are already out there</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1257441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will not, as long as both registrars and SSL providers will register ANYTHING.  And they will.  I got an email recently directing me to something like citibank-online.com.  If you can register that and not have anything to do with CitiBank itself, you have pretty much a blank check to defraud people.  And there is no part of "common sense" that will help people.</p><p>Because citibank-online.com is a perfectly valid domain and could certainly have SSL.  I will bet there will be an EV SSL provider that would sell a certificate for this in the not too distant future as well.  Might be $50,000 for the certificate, but I can assume someone will do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will not , as long as both registrars and SSL providers will register ANYTHING .
And they will .
I got an email recently directing me to something like citibank-online.com .
If you can register that and not have anything to do with CitiBank itself , you have pretty much a blank check to defraud people .
And there is no part of " common sense " that will help people.Because citibank-online.com is a perfectly valid domain and could certainly have SSL .
I will bet there will be an EV SSL provider that would sell a certificate for this in the not too distant future as well .
Might be $ 50,000 for the certificate , but I can assume someone will do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will not, as long as both registrars and SSL providers will register ANYTHING.
And they will.
I got an email recently directing me to something like citibank-online.com.
If you can register that and not have anything to do with CitiBank itself, you have pretty much a blank check to defraud people.
And there is no part of "common sense" that will help people.Because citibank-online.com is a perfectly valid domain and could certainly have SSL.
I will bet there will be an EV SSL provider that would sell a certificate for this in the not too distant future as well.
Might be $50,000 for the certificate, but I can assume someone will do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995358</id>
	<title>Re:And so it begins...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257439260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US?</p></div><p>I'm in Europe. This is not European-style web-blocking. This is entirely US-style web-blocking. Didn't you know that "land of the free" was tongue in cheek for a log long time now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US ? I 'm in Europe .
This is not European-style web-blocking .
This is entirely US-style web-blocking .
Did n't you know that " land of the free " was tongue in cheek for a log long time now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how European-style web-blocking will come to the US?I'm in Europe.
This is not European-style web-blocking.
This is entirely US-style web-blocking.
Didn't you know that "land of the free" was tongue in cheek for a log long time now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995410</id>
	<title>Re:Technical solutions are already out there</title>
	<author>JacobSteelsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1257439500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, except much spam is now coming from hijacked accounts. So domain keys, SPF, and signed DNS would not help much as the spam is coming from legitimate email accounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , except much spam is now coming from hijacked accounts .
So domain keys , SPF , and signed DNS would not help much as the spam is coming from legitimate email accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, except much spam is now coming from hijacked accounts.
So domain keys, SPF, and signed DNS would not help much as the spam is coming from legitimate email accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994444</id>
	<title>warning</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1257434520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not simply have a warning like google and firefox give you if u open a harmful page, and give a choice to continue??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not simply have a warning like google and firefox give you if u open a harmful page , and give a choice to continue ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not simply have a warning like google and firefox give you if u open a harmful page, and give a choice to continue?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995946</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, that will work well.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257442020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And because of that, it will be counterproductive. The threat will still be there, but people will think it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And because of that , it will be counterproductive .
The threat will still be there , but people will think it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And because of that, it will be counterproductive.
The threat will still be there, but people will think it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994520</id>
	<title>Probably a foul-up</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257435000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the wording of the law, I think the idea was to make the scammer's own ISP liable, not every ISP in the country.  But that's not what it says; the law ends up covering every ISP from the scammer to the customer, including transit providers.  Hopefully this thing will get killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the wording of the law , I think the idea was to make the scammer 's own ISP liable , not every ISP in the country .
But that 's not what it says ; the law ends up covering every ISP from the scammer to the customer , including transit providers .
Hopefully this thing will get killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the wording of the law, I think the idea was to make the scammer's own ISP liable, not every ISP in the country.
But that's not what it says; the law ends up covering every ISP from the scammer to the customer, including transit providers.
Hopefully this thing will get killed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994034</id>
	<title>One thing to say</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257432300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994230</id>
	<title>Some Suggestions</title>
	<author>jongalbreath</author>
	<datestamp>1257433500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a couple they can start with: www.orlytaitzesq.com, www.drtaitz.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a couple they can start with : www.orlytaitzesq.com , www.drtaitz.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a couple they can start with: www.orlytaitzesq.com, www.drtaitz.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995000</id>
	<title>Specific enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I am not totally against this measure if it is specific enough. TFS states that this will affect only sites that claim to be SIPC ensured, that aren't. Since SIPC and FDIC are verifiable it would be verifiable to show that these places are not, in fact, insured. This, I have no problem with.</p><p>The slippery slope implications, and the ability of site owners to be informed of the blocking and challenge it on the grounds that either they are insured or they are not claiming to be are definitely troubling. If the law allows for un-blocking in reasonable time after responding to a block notice, (and allows the government or ISP to be sued for not removing them from the official list/unblocking the site after they are removed from the list, respectively) then I guess I can't complain too much.</p><p>People that claim credentials they do not have should not be given voice until they are not using that voice to claim certifiably false accreditation. Though I suppose it might be better to simple arrest them for fraud anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I am not totally against this measure if it is specific enough .
TFS states that this will affect only sites that claim to be SIPC ensured , that are n't .
Since SIPC and FDIC are verifiable it would be verifiable to show that these places are not , in fact , insured .
This , I have no problem with.The slippery slope implications , and the ability of site owners to be informed of the blocking and challenge it on the grounds that either they are insured or they are not claiming to be are definitely troubling .
If the law allows for un-blocking in reasonable time after responding to a block notice , ( and allows the government or ISP to be sued for not removing them from the official list/unblocking the site after they are removed from the list , respectively ) then I guess I ca n't complain too much.People that claim credentials they do not have should not be given voice until they are not using that voice to claim certifiably false accreditation .
Though I suppose it might be better to simple arrest them for fraud anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I am not totally against this measure if it is specific enough.
TFS states that this will affect only sites that claim to be SIPC ensured, that aren't.
Since SIPC and FDIC are verifiable it would be verifiable to show that these places are not, in fact, insured.
This, I have no problem with.The slippery slope implications, and the ability of site owners to be informed of the blocking and challenge it on the grounds that either they are insured or they are not claiming to be are definitely troubling.
If the law allows for un-blocking in reasonable time after responding to a block notice, (and allows the government or ISP to be sued for not removing them from the official list/unblocking the site after they are removed from the list, respectively) then I guess I can't complain too much.People that claim credentials they do not have should not be given voice until they are not using that voice to claim certifiably false accreditation.
Though I suppose it might be better to simple arrest them for fraud anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29998812</id>
	<title>URDP</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1257411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why doesn't the federal Government use the URDP to just seize the domains?  If they're posing at the government, that should be a quick slam-dunk court case, and then the government just takes it to ICANN who forces their registrar to transfer to ownership:</p><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm" title="icann.org">http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm</a> [icann.org]</p><p>I know it's not as simple as that, but once the ball is rolling it should stop them as appealing method of scamming.  Plus, it's "the right way" to get it done without passing any new law that can be abused.  Enabling any sort of China-like-firewall-filter is a *bad idea*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't the federal Government use the URDP to just seize the domains ?
If they 're posing at the government , that should be a quick slam-dunk court case , and then the government just takes it to ICANN who forces their registrar to transfer to ownership : http : //www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm [ icann.org ] I know it 's not as simple as that , but once the ball is rolling it should stop them as appealing method of scamming .
Plus , it 's " the right way " to get it done without passing any new law that can be abused .
Enabling any sort of China-like-firewall-filter is a * bad idea * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't the federal Government use the URDP to just seize the domains?
If they're posing at the government, that should be a quick slam-dunk court case, and then the government just takes it to ICANN who forces their registrar to transfer to ownership:http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm [icann.org]I know it's not as simple as that, but once the ball is rolling it should stop them as appealing method of scamming.
Plus, it's "the right way" to get it done without passing any new law that can be abused.
Enabling any sort of China-like-firewall-filter is a *bad idea*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29998698</id>
	<title>First ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1257454560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>... they came after scammers.
<br>But I'm not a scammer, so I didn't object.
<br>Next they came after smut purveyors.
<br>But I'm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....
<p> <b>Hey wait just a Goddamn minute here!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they came after scammers .
But I 'm not a scammer , so I did n't object .
Next they came after smut purveyors .
But I 'm .... . Hey wait just a Goddamn minute here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they came after scammers.
But I'm not a scammer, so I didn't object.
Next they came after smut purveyors.
But I'm .....
 Hey wait just a Goddamn minute here!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996108</id>
	<title>This is long overdue</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1257442800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The notion that freedom must masquerade as anarchy is stupid and destructive.  There is absolutely no reason why ISPs, registrars, etc should be allows to serve/host known scam sites or CnC servers.
<br> <br>
The governments of the world should land on these scammers like an 800lb gorilla.  The whole "ZOMG THEN PIRATE BAY IS NEXT" hysteria is overdone and only serves to provide cover for extremely bad actors to get away with murder online.  Botnets should not exist--period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion that freedom must masquerade as anarchy is stupid and destructive .
There is absolutely no reason why ISPs , registrars , etc should be allows to serve/host known scam sites or CnC servers .
The governments of the world should land on these scammers like an 800lb gorilla .
The whole " ZOMG THEN PIRATE BAY IS NEXT " hysteria is overdone and only serves to provide cover for extremely bad actors to get away with murder online .
Botnets should not exist--period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion that freedom must masquerade as anarchy is stupid and destructive.
There is absolutely no reason why ISPs, registrars, etc should be allows to serve/host known scam sites or CnC servers.
The governments of the world should land on these scammers like an 800lb gorilla.
The whole "ZOMG THEN PIRATE BAY IS NEXT" hysteria is overdone and only serves to provide cover for extremely bad actors to get away with murder online.
Botnets should not exist--period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996230</id>
	<title>Re:Days of the free internet are finally ending</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually... I rather like the idea of a "guarded pasture" that prevents people from seeing 99\% of the internet as long as anybody with any knowledge of computers can get access to whatever they want.

</p><p>I'd also like to see a new law... if you post content on the internet without any explicit claim of copyright, then it's free to copy and distribute non-commercially with attribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually... I rather like the idea of a " guarded pasture " that prevents people from seeing 99 \ % of the internet as long as anybody with any knowledge of computers can get access to whatever they want .
I 'd also like to see a new law... if you post content on the internet without any explicit claim of copyright , then it 's free to copy and distribute non-commercially with attribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually... I rather like the idea of a "guarded pasture" that prevents people from seeing 99\% of the internet as long as anybody with any knowledge of computers can get access to whatever they want.
I'd also like to see a new law... if you post content on the internet without any explicit claim of copyright, then it's free to copy and distribute non-commercially with attribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994300</id>
	<title>Scary stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257433800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This \_is\_ internet censorship.  While, most people won't have a problem with filtering this site or when they move onto censoring child pornography<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It is scary to think how far it may go when pushed by the right lobbyist (popular torrent sites, sites offering prescription drugs, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This \ _is \ _ internet censorship .
While , most people wo n't have a problem with filtering this site or when they move onto censoring child pornography ... It is scary to think how far it may go when pushed by the right lobbyist ( popular torrent sites , sites offering prescription drugs , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This \_is\_ internet censorship.
While, most people won't have a problem with filtering this site or when they move onto censoring child pornography ... It is scary to think how far it may go when pushed by the right lobbyist (popular torrent sites, sites offering prescription drugs, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996572</id>
	<title>Re:And so it begins...</title>
	<author>vwjeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257445020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure the Nigerian Prince would hand over suspected scammers if you gave him your bank account routing number.  It seems like a fair trade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the Nigerian Prince would hand over suspected scammers if you gave him your bank account routing number .
It seems like a fair trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the Nigerian Prince would hand over suspected scammers if you gave him your bank account routing number.
It seems like a fair trade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.30004878</id>
	<title>Re:Rather Continues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257517500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dig the Shatner impression, man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dig the Shatner impression , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dig the Shatner impression, man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995120</id>
	<title>Obligatory checklist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congressman Kanjorski advocates a</p><p>( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting phishing. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p><p>( ) Phishers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate Internet uses would be affected<br>(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop phishing for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>( ) Users of the Internet will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>( ) Many Internet users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Phishers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>(X) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>(X) Asshats<br>(X) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>(X) Extreme profitability of phishing<br>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>(X) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with phishers<br>( ) Dishonesty on the part of phishers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>(X) Blacklists suck<br>( ) Whitelists suck<br>(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) Sending email should be free<br>(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>(X) I don't want the government reading my email<br>(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p><p>(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your<br>house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congressman Kanjorski advocates a ( ) technical ( X ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting phishing .
His idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Phishers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( X ) Mailing lists and other legitimate Internet uses would be affected ( X ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop phishing for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of the Internet will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many Internet users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Phishers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( X ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( X ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( X ) Asshats ( X ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( X ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( X ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( X ) Extreme profitability of phishing ( X ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( X ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with phishers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of phishers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( X ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( X ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( X ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about you : ( X ) Sorry dude , but I do n't think it would work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and you 're a stupid person for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0le !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn yourhouse down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congressman Kanjorski advocates a( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting phishing.
His idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) Phishers can easily use it to harvest email addresses(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate Internet uses would be affected(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) It will stop phishing for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it( ) Users of the Internet will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once( ) Many Internet users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Phishers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(X) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses(X) Asshats(X) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(X) Extreme profitability of phishing(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft(X) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with phishers( ) Dishonesty on the part of phishers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation(X) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) Sending email should be free(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome(X) I don't want the government reading my email(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about you:(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn yourhouse down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994456</id>
	<title>Good or Bad? A Good Question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's perfectly laudable to protect people from scams, from pictures of sexual child abuse, from copyright, from hate speech, from defamation, from critique on our benevolent overlords the government... wait, what?</p><p>The point is that whatever you're trying to protect from, blocking is always censorship. Censorship instantly makes a country, any country, even, no <i>especially</i> the USA, a lot less free.</p><p>No, I don't think most of the above should even be punishable, not even possession of, as is illegal in the UK now, "extreme" porn <i>drawings</i>. <i>Producing</i> actual child porn causing harm to children, yes, that should be punishable. But possession of pictures is not making same pictures. And it's really only the <i>causing harm</i> I care about.</p><p>Show me that hate speech causes harm instead of merely assuming it does and I'll agree to suppressing it. Otherwise, well, we're still free to disagree with or ignore anybody else's free speech.</p><p>Show me that <i>copyright infringment</i> causes harm and I'll even support those despicable bastards at the RIAA. All evidence to date points the other way. Either that or it shows signs of pressure group tampering.</p><p>The only way I would support "taking down" these scam sites is by doing it in a lawful manner: Drag them before the relevant court of justice. Judge says it's ok? Impound the stuff and throw'em in the clink, or whatever the judge said to do with'em. If the police cannot do that, then there is no reason to make ISPs play the police, or to institute elaborate censorship schemes (who is going to maintain the list of "bad" sites?) but every reason to fix the police.</p><p>Complaining teh interwebz makes this Just Too Hard is rubbish: Way back when there were plenty of nigerian scams sent by postal mail, coming from far and away. Even postage is not an excuse: Fleece someone for even just $10k and calculate how many international letters you can send for that amount. It's less than email, but with take up rates less spectacularly low than email, enough to make a profit.</p><p>The only way to take the sting out of financial fraud scams quickly is to educate people that these are scams and that falling for them makes one an accomplice, so don't do it. If you can't teach them even that little, then protecting them makes no sense either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's perfectly laudable to protect people from scams , from pictures of sexual child abuse , from copyright , from hate speech , from defamation , from critique on our benevolent overlords the government... wait , what ? The point is that whatever you 're trying to protect from , blocking is always censorship .
Censorship instantly makes a country , any country , even , no especially the USA , a lot less free.No , I do n't think most of the above should even be punishable , not even possession of , as is illegal in the UK now , " extreme " porn drawings .
Producing actual child porn causing harm to children , yes , that should be punishable .
But possession of pictures is not making same pictures .
And it 's really only the causing harm I care about.Show me that hate speech causes harm instead of merely assuming it does and I 'll agree to suppressing it .
Otherwise , well , we 're still free to disagree with or ignore anybody else 's free speech.Show me that copyright infringment causes harm and I 'll even support those despicable bastards at the RIAA .
All evidence to date points the other way .
Either that or it shows signs of pressure group tampering.The only way I would support " taking down " these scam sites is by doing it in a lawful manner : Drag them before the relevant court of justice .
Judge says it 's ok ?
Impound the stuff and throw'em in the clink , or whatever the judge said to do with'em .
If the police can not do that , then there is no reason to make ISPs play the police , or to institute elaborate censorship schemes ( who is going to maintain the list of " bad " sites ?
) but every reason to fix the police.Complaining teh interwebz makes this Just Too Hard is rubbish : Way back when there were plenty of nigerian scams sent by postal mail , coming from far and away .
Even postage is not an excuse : Fleece someone for even just $ 10k and calculate how many international letters you can send for that amount .
It 's less than email , but with take up rates less spectacularly low than email , enough to make a profit.The only way to take the sting out of financial fraud scams quickly is to educate people that these are scams and that falling for them makes one an accomplice , so do n't do it .
If you ca n't teach them even that little , then protecting them makes no sense either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's perfectly laudable to protect people from scams, from pictures of sexual child abuse, from copyright, from hate speech, from defamation, from critique on our benevolent overlords the government... wait, what?The point is that whatever you're trying to protect from, blocking is always censorship.
Censorship instantly makes a country, any country, even, no especially the USA, a lot less free.No, I don't think most of the above should even be punishable, not even possession of, as is illegal in the UK now, "extreme" porn drawings.
Producing actual child porn causing harm to children, yes, that should be punishable.
But possession of pictures is not making same pictures.
And it's really only the causing harm I care about.Show me that hate speech causes harm instead of merely assuming it does and I'll agree to suppressing it.
Otherwise, well, we're still free to disagree with or ignore anybody else's free speech.Show me that copyright infringment causes harm and I'll even support those despicable bastards at the RIAA.
All evidence to date points the other way.
Either that or it shows signs of pressure group tampering.The only way I would support "taking down" these scam sites is by doing it in a lawful manner: Drag them before the relevant court of justice.
Judge says it's ok?
Impound the stuff and throw'em in the clink, or whatever the judge said to do with'em.
If the police cannot do that, then there is no reason to make ISPs play the police, or to institute elaborate censorship schemes (who is going to maintain the list of "bad" sites?
) but every reason to fix the police.Complaining teh interwebz makes this Just Too Hard is rubbish: Way back when there were plenty of nigerian scams sent by postal mail, coming from far and away.
Even postage is not an excuse: Fleece someone for even just $10k and calculate how many international letters you can send for that amount.
It's less than email, but with take up rates less spectacularly low than email, enough to make a profit.The only way to take the sting out of financial fraud scams quickly is to educate people that these are scams and that falling for them makes one an accomplice, so don't do it.
If you can't teach them even that little, then protecting them makes no sense either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995872</id>
	<title>Re:good or bad?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257441660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad.  As you said, slippery slope.  More likely than all-out censorship: false positives.  Oops. hormel.com is on the SPAM list now.  Pay $$$ and apply the following forms in triplicate to be removed from the list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad .
As you said , slippery slope .
More likely than all-out censorship : false positives .
Oops. hormel.com is on the SPAM list now .
Pay $ $ $ and apply the following forms in triplicate to be removed from the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad.
As you said, slippery slope.
More likely than all-out censorship: false positives.
Oops. hormel.com is on the SPAM list now.
Pay $$$ and apply the following forms in triplicate to be removed from the list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994364</id>
	<title>CFPA is possibly even worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congress keeps trying to overreach in these issues.  The CFPA is going to impose ridiculous restrictions on the technology community as well:</p><p>http://www.techamerica.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ICC-Letter-Requesting-Changes-to-CFPA1.pdf</p><p>both of these bills are poorly thought out and should be shot down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress keeps trying to overreach in these issues .
The CFPA is going to impose ridiculous restrictions on the technology community as well : http : //www.techamerica.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ICC-Letter-Requesting-Changes-to-CFPA1.pdfboth of these bills are poorly thought out and should be shot down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress keeps trying to overreach in these issues.
The CFPA is going to impose ridiculous restrictions on the technology community as well:http://www.techamerica.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ICC-Letter-Requesting-Changes-to-CFPA1.pdfboth of these bills are poorly thought out and should be shot down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.30002992</id>
	<title>Instead of filtering...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1257441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a tool based on user decision?</p><p>Instead of deleting mail outright, flag and tag it to inform the user that it is most likely spam/fraud. Same for webpages, put a page in front of it informing the user that the page was flagged for possible spam/fraud/infector and warn him, but offer him the option to go there anyway.</p><p>I'm all for protecting people, but not at the price of freedom. It is likely that spammers and fraudsters will find ways around it, if nothing else then they will simply switch webpages and mailbots faster than the bureaucracy can keep up with the adding of pages and mail sources. OTOH, if you end up on that spam list falsely (and it's very unlikely that this will be the first case where this won't happen), it basically means end of business for web based enterprises. I'm not even going to mention the implications for free speech, I guess that's not necessary here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a tool based on user decision ? Instead of deleting mail outright , flag and tag it to inform the user that it is most likely spam/fraud .
Same for webpages , put a page in front of it informing the user that the page was flagged for possible spam/fraud/infector and warn him , but offer him the option to go there anyway.I 'm all for protecting people , but not at the price of freedom .
It is likely that spammers and fraudsters will find ways around it , if nothing else then they will simply switch webpages and mailbots faster than the bureaucracy can keep up with the adding of pages and mail sources .
OTOH , if you end up on that spam list falsely ( and it 's very unlikely that this will be the first case where this wo n't happen ) , it basically means end of business for web based enterprises .
I 'm not even going to mention the implications for free speech , I guess that 's not necessary here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a tool based on user decision?Instead of deleting mail outright, flag and tag it to inform the user that it is most likely spam/fraud.
Same for webpages, put a page in front of it informing the user that the page was flagged for possible spam/fraud/infector and warn him, but offer him the option to go there anyway.I'm all for protecting people, but not at the price of freedom.
It is likely that spammers and fraudsters will find ways around it, if nothing else then they will simply switch webpages and mailbots faster than the bureaucracy can keep up with the adding of pages and mail sources.
OTOH, if you end up on that spam list falsely (and it's very unlikely that this will be the first case where this won't happen), it basically means end of business for web based enterprises.
I'm not even going to mention the implications for free speech, I guess that's not necessary here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994120</id>
	<title>Oh, that will work well.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257432840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, yet another legislative solution that simply isn't going to achieve anything...</p><p>How many scam sites are actually hosted in a country where this new act carries any weight what-so-ever? Even if you close one that is in your country, how much time to you think it would take for the fraudsters to just move elsewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , yet another legislative solution that simply is n't going to achieve anything...How many scam sites are actually hosted in a country where this new act carries any weight what-so-ever ?
Even if you close one that is in your country , how much time to you think it would take for the fraudsters to just move elsewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, yet another legislative solution that simply isn't going to achieve anything...How many scam sites are actually hosted in a country where this new act carries any weight what-so-ever?
Even if you close one that is in your country, how much time to you think it would take for the fraudsters to just move elsewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994298</id>
	<title>ScrubIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257433740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ScrubIT has already been filtering our porn and malicious sites.  Personally, I am surprised more ISP dont do so as well.  DNS lookups would be much faster without all the garbage listings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ScrubIT has already been filtering our porn and malicious sites .
Personally , I am surprised more ISP dont do so as well .
DNS lookups would be much faster without all the garbage listings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ScrubIT has already been filtering our porn and malicious sites.
Personally, I am surprised more ISP dont do so as well.
DNS lookups would be much faster without all the garbage listings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994372</id>
	<title>The long, slow descent has begun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First it will be fraud sites.  Then alleged copyright infringers.  Then alleged porn peddlers.  Then alleged left wing/right wing propagandists.  Then any site deemed to be detrimental to the well-being of the Homeland.</p><p>And before you know it, the commercialization of the World Wide Web (a least from the viewpoint of a US citizen) will be complete.</p><p>Here's a message to Congress:  Just stay the fuck out of my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First it will be fraud sites .
Then alleged copyright infringers .
Then alleged porn peddlers .
Then alleged left wing/right wing propagandists .
Then any site deemed to be detrimental to the well-being of the Homeland.And before you know it , the commercialization of the World Wide Web ( a least from the viewpoint of a US citizen ) will be complete.Here 's a message to Congress : Just stay the fuck out of my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First it will be fraud sites.
Then alleged copyright infringers.
Then alleged porn peddlers.
Then alleged left wing/right wing propagandists.
Then any site deemed to be detrimental to the well-being of the Homeland.And before you know it, the commercialization of the World Wide Web (a least from the viewpoint of a US citizen) will be complete.Here's a message to Congress:  Just stay the fuck out of my life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994612</id>
	<title>Doesn't this help the scammers?</title>
	<author>Caldrak</author>
	<datestamp>1257435480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, so the bill is passed and Uncle Sam tells his people that they are safe from fraud.  *Gasp* a new site pops up.  But it's not on the blocked list.  The people rejoice, they can once again help out the Nigerian Prince, and this time it's not a scam... ZOMG!!!!1

More people then ever get burned because they no longer have to apply common sense to the web, the govt is there to help them.  I wouldn't be surprised if the site uses it's stats as not being on the list as a proof of legitimacy.

By the time the site has been blocked, the scammers have made far more money then they would have in the same timeframe off the old site, and it's time to setup the next scam.

Actually, now that I think about it, does anybody know if a Nigerian prince is somehow a lobbyist backing this bill, or at the very least, padding the pockets of the politicians?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , so the bill is passed and Uncle Sam tells his people that they are safe from fraud .
* Gasp * a new site pops up .
But it 's not on the blocked list .
The people rejoice , they can once again help out the Nigerian Prince , and this time it 's not a scam.. .
ZOMG ! ! ! ! 1 More people then ever get burned because they no longer have to apply common sense to the web , the govt is there to help them .
I would n't be surprised if the site uses it 's stats as not being on the list as a proof of legitimacy .
By the time the site has been blocked , the scammers have made far more money then they would have in the same timeframe off the old site , and it 's time to setup the next scam .
Actually , now that I think about it , does anybody know if a Nigerian prince is somehow a lobbyist backing this bill , or at the very least , padding the pockets of the politicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, so the bill is passed and Uncle Sam tells his people that they are safe from fraud.
*Gasp* a new site pops up.
But it's not on the blocked list.
The people rejoice, they can once again help out the Nigerian Prince, and this time it's not a scam...
ZOMG!!!!1

More people then ever get burned because they no longer have to apply common sense to the web, the govt is there to help them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the site uses it's stats as not being on the list as a proof of legitimacy.
By the time the site has been blocked, the scammers have made far more money then they would have in the same timeframe off the old site, and it's time to setup the next scam.
Actually, now that I think about it, does anybody know if a Nigerian prince is somehow a lobbyist backing this bill, or at the very least, padding the pockets of the politicians?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994050</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257432360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement &mdash; and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions &mdash; would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.'"</p></div><p>They shouldn't be worried. The government almost never passes laws which cannot be enforced. They've got a pretty good grasp on technology.</p><p>Oh, by the way, I'm selling some ocean-front property in Arizona. It's quite a steal, feel free to reply if you are interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski 's requirement    and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions    would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible .
' " They should n't be worried .
The government almost never passes laws which can not be enforced .
They 've got a pretty good grasp on technology.Oh , by the way , I 'm selling some ocean-front property in Arizona .
It 's quite a steal , feel free to reply if you are interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement — and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions — would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.
'"They shouldn't be worried.
The government almost never passes laws which cannot be enforced.
They've got a pretty good grasp on technology.Oh, by the way, I'm selling some ocean-front property in Arizona.
It's quite a steal, feel free to reply if you are interested.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030</id>
	<title>OpenDNS</title>
	<author>LinuxIsGarbage</author>
	<datestamp>1257432300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.opendns.com/" title="opendns.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.opendns.com/</a> [opendns.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.opendns.com/ [ opendns.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994330</id>
	<title>Exemptions?</title>
	<author>rbarreira</author>
	<datestamp>1257433980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the bailed out banks get an exemption?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the bailed out banks get an exemption ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the bailed out banks get an exemption?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997112</id>
	<title>Here we go..</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257447720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The beginning of the slippery slope.</p><p>Today, its 'fraud' sites, next its KP... then the next TPB, then anything that the administration in charge at the time doesn't like at the time. ( like a site that supports free speech, or disagrees with them )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The beginning of the slippery slope.Today , its 'fraud ' sites , next its KP... then the next TPB , then anything that the administration in charge at the time does n't like at the time .
( like a site that supports free speech , or disagrees with them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The beginning of the slippery slope.Today, its 'fraud' sites, next its KP... then the next TPB, then anything that the administration in charge at the time doesn't like at the time.
( like a site that supports free speech, or disagrees with them )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994878</id>
	<title>Re:good or bad?</title>
	<author>Kulfaangaren!</author>
	<datestamp>1257436860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1. Wish I had mod-points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 .
Wish I had mod-points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1.
Wish I had mod-points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29999128</id>
	<title>Re:Rather Continues</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1257413160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Burma Shave!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Burma Shave !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burma Shave!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.30004878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29999128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1318230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29997446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29994294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29999128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.30004878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29995358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1318230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1318230.29996824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
