<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_044220</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality Seen Through the Telegraph</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259870220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>James McP writes <i>"Ars Technica has a write-up on the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars">unregulated telegraph of the 19th century</a>, which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality.  The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>James McP writes " Ars Technica has a write-up on the unregulated telegraph of the 19th century , which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality .
The owners of the 'Victorian internet ' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies , manipulate elections , facilitate insider trading , and censor criticism .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James McP writes "Ars Technica has a write-up on the unregulated telegraph of the 19th century, which gives a view into what could happen to an internet lacking any regulation mandating neutrality.
The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311880</id>
	<title>Re:government regulation</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Nope, that's not what net-neutrality advocates. Don't let the government regulate it, just get the government to pass laws preventing anyone else from regulating it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , that 's not what net-neutrality advocates .
Do n't let the government regulate it , just get the government to pass laws preventing anyone else from regulating it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Nope, that's not what net-neutrality advocates.
Don't let the government regulate it, just get the government to pass laws preventing anyone else from regulating it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314376</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Just Another Poster</author>
	<datestamp>1259870760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting. For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>
"Looters will be shot."
</p><p>
Problem solved.
</p><blockquote><div><p>In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.</p></div></blockquote><p>
And who better to give a monopoly of force to than the robbers, pillagers and rapists!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their " natural " state , robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting .
For references , see looters in natural disasters , crime reports during blackouts , etc .
" Looters will be shot .
" Problem solved .
In the marketplace , without regulation , people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less .
And who better to give a monopoly of force to than the robbers , pillagers and rapists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting.
For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.
"Looters will be shot.
"

Problem solved.
In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.
And who better to give a monopoly of force to than the robbers, pillagers and rapists!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309398</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259850000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the Comcast deal to buy 51\% of NBC Universal could run afoul not only from competing cable systems, small-dish satellite TV providers and other cable content providers, but also could get a LOT of scrutiny from Congress, FCC and FTC.</p><p>The fear is simple: Comcast could shut out other cable content providers on Comcast cable systems and/or pull NBC Universal-owned channels from competing cable systems and small-dish satellite providers (the current spat between DirecTV and Comcast-owned Versus channel will be <b>NOTHING</b> compared to what happens if Comcast were to threaten to pull CNBC off non-Comcast cable systems, DirecTV and Dish Network).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the Comcast deal to buy 51 \ % of NBC Universal could run afoul not only from competing cable systems , small-dish satellite TV providers and other cable content providers , but also could get a LOT of scrutiny from Congress , FCC and FTC.The fear is simple : Comcast could shut out other cable content providers on Comcast cable systems and/or pull NBC Universal-owned channels from competing cable systems and small-dish satellite providers ( the current spat between DirecTV and Comcast-owned Versus channel will be NOTHING compared to what happens if Comcast were to threaten to pull CNBC off non-Comcast cable systems , DirecTV and Dish Network ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the Comcast deal to buy 51\% of NBC Universal could run afoul not only from competing cable systems, small-dish satellite TV providers and other cable content providers, but also could get a LOT of scrutiny from Congress, FCC and FTC.The fear is simple: Comcast could shut out other cable content providers on Comcast cable systems and/or pull NBC Universal-owned channels from competing cable systems and small-dish satellite providers (the current spat between DirecTV and Comcast-owned Versus channel will be NOTHING compared to what happens if Comcast were to threaten to pull CNBC off non-Comcast cable systems, DirecTV and Dish Network).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308910</id>
	<title>Remember the wire?</title>
	<author>Old Flatulent 1</author>
	<datestamp>1259841540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a direct result of the lack of regulation, criminals ran things from behind the scenes with bribes and even worse tactics even later on in history. Things were much worse in the early part of the 20th century.

A fellow with the nick name of "Dutch Schultz" easily created a gambling and money laundering communications empire by thoroughly corrupting the industry from within.

His shtick was so slick that most did not even know to what extent it went on. You essentially had to pay "The Man" if you wanted to do any financial business over the wire period! Not just the fact that it controlled race track betting information and wagering.

His mafia partners made enough money to keep the FBI off their backs...J. Edgar Hoover did not even acknowledge that they existed and a substantial part of Washington not just Cities official and Police were on the take.

If there is no sensible public oversight of what goes on on the internet then you can bet it will become a haven for criminals and eventually they will run things from behind the scenes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a direct result of the lack of regulation , criminals ran things from behind the scenes with bribes and even worse tactics even later on in history .
Things were much worse in the early part of the 20th century .
A fellow with the nick name of " Dutch Schultz " easily created a gambling and money laundering communications empire by thoroughly corrupting the industry from within .
His shtick was so slick that most did not even know to what extent it went on .
You essentially had to pay " The Man " if you wanted to do any financial business over the wire period !
Not just the fact that it controlled race track betting information and wagering .
His mafia partners made enough money to keep the FBI off their backs...J. Edgar Hoover did not even acknowledge that they existed and a substantial part of Washington not just Cities official and Police were on the take .
If there is no sensible public oversight of what goes on on the internet then you can bet it will become a haven for criminals and eventually they will run things from behind the scenes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a direct result of the lack of regulation, criminals ran things from behind the scenes with bribes and even worse tactics even later on in history.
Things were much worse in the early part of the 20th century.
A fellow with the nick name of "Dutch Schultz" easily created a gambling and money laundering communications empire by thoroughly corrupting the industry from within.
His shtick was so slick that most did not even know to what extent it went on.
You essentially had to pay "The Man" if you wanted to do any financial business over the wire period!
Not just the fact that it controlled race track betting information and wagering.
His mafia partners made enough money to keep the FBI off their backs...J. Edgar Hoover did not even acknowledge that they existed and a substantial part of Washington not just Cities official and Police were on the take.
If there is no sensible public oversight of what goes on on the internet then you can bet it will become a haven for criminals and eventually they will run things from behind the scenes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government, because they're oh-so-neutral and objective?  You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins?  You really think a lobby group wouldn't bribe the government to regulate your precious Bittorrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism" or that the government wouldn't monitor your private Facebook posts when they're already happy to continue wiretapping your phone without warrants?</p><p>Seriously, does anybody even think this shit through?  I've never gotten the "net neutrality" (as phoney a name as the Patriot Act) argument or heard of a convincing example of abuse that proves it's even needed.  The internet isn't a right.  It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants.  Don't like it, don't use that ISP.  That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration.  Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.</p><p>Can we please stop expanding government power for no fucking reason?  Pretty please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government , because they 're oh-so-neutral and objective ?
You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins ?
You really think a lobby group would n't bribe the government to regulate your precious Bittorrent traffic in order to prevent " economic terrorism " or that the government would n't monitor your private Facebook posts when they 're already happy to continue wiretapping your phone without warrants ? Seriously , does anybody even think this shit through ?
I 've never gotten the " net neutrality " ( as phoney a name as the Patriot Act ) argument or heard of a convincing example of abuse that proves it 's even needed .
The internet is n't a right .
It 's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants .
Do n't like it , do n't use that ISP .
That you 're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration .
Somehow , people made do without the internet mere decades ago.Can we please stop expanding government power for no fucking reason ?
Pretty please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government, because they're oh-so-neutral and objective?
You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins?
You really think a lobby group wouldn't bribe the government to regulate your precious Bittorrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism" or that the government wouldn't monitor your private Facebook posts when they're already happy to continue wiretapping your phone without warrants?Seriously, does anybody even think this shit through?
I've never gotten the "net neutrality" (as phoney a name as the Patriot Act) argument or heard of a convincing example of abuse that proves it's even needed.
The internet isn't a right.
It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants.
Don't like it, don't use that ISP.
That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration.
Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.Can we please stop expanding government power for no fucking reason?
Pretty please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308924</id>
	<title>Notice that the competition</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259841660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was the only thing that really solved the problem.  Wireless broke the back.</p><p>Now, the same thing will have to happen for internet service, or, really, there needs to be some federal regulation involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was the only thing that really solved the problem .
Wireless broke the back.Now , the same thing will have to happen for internet service , or , really , there needs to be some federal regulation involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was the only thing that really solved the problem.
Wireless broke the back.Now, the same thing will have to happen for internet service, or, really, there needs to be some federal regulation involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308638</id>
	<title>Worst argument EVAR</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259836860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your whole argument depends on the premise that government regulation is always detrimental. This is untrue on the face of it. Government has a strong role to play in regulation, rule making, arbitration, justice, social justice, and defense.</p><p>OSHA regulations protect workers from dangerous work environments.<br>NTSB regulations protect travelers.<br>Our courts provide a venue to exercise our most important right, the right to redress of grievances.</p><p>Government regulation is a good thing because it provides the rules to which our society must adhere. Without these rules, a veritable free-for-all would occur. In a market with many players, this may be beneficial, but in a market of captive customers like we have in the American ISP market this can be very detrimental.</p><p>It's not even good enough to make the rules once and let things be. As we've seen countless times the rules need to be readdressed occasionally to adapt to new situations. Our founding fathers new this, and that is why we have the Constitutional Amendment process.</p><p>Historically, the only real "laissez-faire" founding father was Thomas Jefferson and pretty much all his contemporaries considered him a fraud and brigand. Government regulation has been the cornerstone of our country for almost two and a half centuries. To claim some sort of high moral ground because you oppose it in this one specific case is pretty sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your whole argument depends on the premise that government regulation is always detrimental .
This is untrue on the face of it .
Government has a strong role to play in regulation , rule making , arbitration , justice , social justice , and defense.OSHA regulations protect workers from dangerous work environments.NTSB regulations protect travelers.Our courts provide a venue to exercise our most important right , the right to redress of grievances.Government regulation is a good thing because it provides the rules to which our society must adhere .
Without these rules , a veritable free-for-all would occur .
In a market with many players , this may be beneficial , but in a market of captive customers like we have in the American ISP market this can be very detrimental.It 's not even good enough to make the rules once and let things be .
As we 've seen countless times the rules need to be readdressed occasionally to adapt to new situations .
Our founding fathers new this , and that is why we have the Constitutional Amendment process.Historically , the only real " laissez-faire " founding father was Thomas Jefferson and pretty much all his contemporaries considered him a fraud and brigand .
Government regulation has been the cornerstone of our country for almost two and a half centuries .
To claim some sort of high moral ground because you oppose it in this one specific case is pretty sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your whole argument depends on the premise that government regulation is always detrimental.
This is untrue on the face of it.
Government has a strong role to play in regulation, rule making, arbitration, justice, social justice, and defense.OSHA regulations protect workers from dangerous work environments.NTSB regulations protect travelers.Our courts provide a venue to exercise our most important right, the right to redress of grievances.Government regulation is a good thing because it provides the rules to which our society must adhere.
Without these rules, a veritable free-for-all would occur.
In a market with many players, this may be beneficial, but in a market of captive customers like we have in the American ISP market this can be very detrimental.It's not even good enough to make the rules once and let things be.
As we've seen countless times the rules need to be readdressed occasionally to adapt to new situations.
Our founding fathers new this, and that is why we have the Constitutional Amendment process.Historically, the only real "laissez-faire" founding father was Thomas Jefferson and pretty much all his contemporaries considered him a fraud and brigand.
Government regulation has been the cornerstone of our country for almost two and a half centuries.
To claim some sort of high moral ground because you oppose it in this one specific case is pretty sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311778</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1259861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The highways of our great country are paid for communally. We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.</p><p>But some vehicles must pay extra. There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition. Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.</p><p>A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing. There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use. Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?</p><p>Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.</p><p>Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing "bandwidth abuse".</p></div><p>Since when is the Internet paid for communally?</p><p>Personally, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. In the event that what I pay doesn't cover the cost, I expect the provider to either raise the price charged or lower the amount of bandwidth provided.</p><p><b>But</b> in the latter case, the provider should make this known, rather than throttling me down but still promising me the moon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally .
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.But some vehicles must pay extra .
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition .
Since they weigh more , they must pay extra fees.A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing .
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents ' basement can slow traffic for everyone else .
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use .
Should n't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they are n't causing physical damage to the entire system ? Cry about " unlimited bandwidth plans " and the like all you want .
It 's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand .
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing " bandwidth abuse " .Since when is the Internet paid for communally ? Personally , I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth .
In the event that what I pay does n't cover the cost , I expect the provider to either raise the price charged or lower the amount of bandwidth provided.But in the latter case , the provider should make this known , rather than throttling me down but still promising me the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally.
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.But some vehicles must pay extra.
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition.
Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing.
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else.
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use.
Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want.
It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing "bandwidth abuse".Since when is the Internet paid for communally?Personally, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth.
In the event that what I pay doesn't cover the cost, I expect the provider to either raise the price charged or lower the amount of bandwidth provided.But in the latter case, the provider should make this known, rather than throttling me down but still promising me the moon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312674</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1259864460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information.</i></p><p>Indeed, the Internet exists as the incredibly free exchange of political, commercial, technical, and pornographic information because of a lack of government regulation at the inception of the private expansion of the Internet (believe me, I was there, and there were plenty of government censorship threats).  The nature of government is to control information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information.Indeed , the Internet exists as the incredibly free exchange of political , commercial , technical , and pornographic information because of a lack of government regulation at the inception of the private expansion of the Internet ( believe me , I was there , and there were plenty of government censorship threats ) .
The nature of government is to control information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information.Indeed, the Internet exists as the incredibly free exchange of political, commercial, technical, and pornographic information because of a lack of government regulation at the inception of the private expansion of the Internet (believe me, I was there, and there were plenty of government censorship threats).
The nature of government is to control information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310538</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get this worship of the "free" market. I encourage you to RTFA, it's an eye-opener.</p><p>I have no pull whatever over Comcast. If County Market pisses me off, I can go to a different grocery store. If Comcast pisses me off, I'm fuX0red. There is no competetion, and where there's no competetion the corporation is NOT beholden to its customers in any way, shape, or form. There is no free market when it comes to utilities!</p><p>My electrical utility is run by the city (and makes a tidy profit). If rates go up too far, or service declines, the Mayor will lose an election. They are beholden to their customers. As a public utility I can vote the CEO (Mayor) out. I can't vote Comcasts's CEO out, only its shareholders can do that. Comcast doesn't have to worry about me, the customer, at all.</p><p>Monopolies need FAR more regulation than, say, a grocery store, and even then, you need regulations to keep them from selling me poison food. Which, by the way, food suppliers get in trouble for this type of assault (people have died) and robbery all the time.</p><p>Government isn't the problem, our system of determining who governs is. For one, it's easy to bribe legally with only two parties. I've been pushing for some reforms (tilting at windmills) that willl never, ever happen.</p><ol> <li>I should not be able to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. If I "contribute" to both, it's a bribe, period.</li><li>I should not be allowed to contribute to any candidate I'm not registered to vote for.</li></ol><p>Having campaigns publically financed would be even better, but that's even less likely to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get this worship of the " free " market .
I encourage you to RTFA , it 's an eye-opener.I have no pull whatever over Comcast .
If County Market pisses me off , I can go to a different grocery store .
If Comcast pisses me off , I 'm fuX0red .
There is no competetion , and where there 's no competetion the corporation is NOT beholden to its customers in any way , shape , or form .
There is no free market when it comes to utilities ! My electrical utility is run by the city ( and makes a tidy profit ) .
If rates go up too far , or service declines , the Mayor will lose an election .
They are beholden to their customers .
As a public utility I can vote the CEO ( Mayor ) out .
I ca n't vote Comcasts 's CEO out , only its shareholders can do that .
Comcast does n't have to worry about me , the customer , at all.Monopolies need FAR more regulation than , say , a grocery store , and even then , you need regulations to keep them from selling me poison food .
Which , by the way , food suppliers get in trouble for this type of assault ( people have died ) and robbery all the time.Government is n't the problem , our system of determining who governs is .
For one , it 's easy to bribe legally with only two parties .
I 've been pushing for some reforms ( tilting at windmills ) that willl never , ever happen .
I should not be able to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race .
If I " contribute " to both , it 's a bribe , period.I should not be allowed to contribute to any candidate I 'm not registered to vote for.Having campaigns publically financed would be even better , but that 's even less likely to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get this worship of the "free" market.
I encourage you to RTFA, it's an eye-opener.I have no pull whatever over Comcast.
If County Market pisses me off, I can go to a different grocery store.
If Comcast pisses me off, I'm fuX0red.
There is no competetion, and where there's no competetion the corporation is NOT beholden to its customers in any way, shape, or form.
There is no free market when it comes to utilities!My electrical utility is run by the city (and makes a tidy profit).
If rates go up too far, or service declines, the Mayor will lose an election.
They are beholden to their customers.
As a public utility I can vote the CEO (Mayor) out.
I can't vote Comcasts's CEO out, only its shareholders can do that.
Comcast doesn't have to worry about me, the customer, at all.Monopolies need FAR more regulation than, say, a grocery store, and even then, you need regulations to keep them from selling me poison food.
Which, by the way, food suppliers get in trouble for this type of assault (people have died) and robbery all the time.Government isn't the problem, our system of determining who governs is.
For one, it's easy to bribe legally with only two parties.
I've been pushing for some reforms (tilting at windmills) that willl never, ever happen.
I should not be able to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race.
If I "contribute" to both, it's a bribe, period.I should not be allowed to contribute to any candidate I'm not registered to vote for.Having campaigns publically financed would be even better, but that's even less likely to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311428</id>
	<title>Re:so clueless!</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259860740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!</p></div><p>BadAnalogyGuy wins.  You fail Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" BadAnalogyGuy " is just so appropriate for you ! BadAnalogyGuy wins .
You fail Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!BadAnalogyGuy wins.
You fail Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308484</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever thought about learning Morse</title>
	<author>tagno25</author>
	<datestamp>1259834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: <a href="http://www.lcwo.net/" title="lcwo.net">http://www.lcwo.net/</a> [lcwo.net].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.-.</p></div><p>--- pause<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.-. stop <br>
-... pause<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..- pause -.-- stop<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.- stop<br>
-.. pause . pause -.-. pause --- pause -.. pause . pause<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.-. stop<br>
-.-. pause --- pause<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. pause -. stop<br>
<br>
Pause and stop because of "Please use fewer 'junk' characters."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever thought about learning Morse , you can do it at this very good site : http : //www.lcwo.net/ [ lcwo.net ] .
.-.--- pause .- .
stop -... pause ..- pause -.-- stop .- stop -.. pause .
pause -.- .
pause --- pause -.. pause .
pause .- .
stop -.- .
pause --- pause .. pause - .
stop Pause and stop because of " Please use fewer 'junk ' characters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: http://www.lcwo.net/ [lcwo.net].
.-.--- pause .-.
stop 
-... pause ..- pause -.-- stop .- stop
-.. pause .
pause -.-.
pause --- pause -.. pause .
pause .-.
stop
-.-.
pause --- pause .. pause -.
stop

Pause and stop because of "Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311820</id>
	<title>in theory, perhaps...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>libertarianism is wonderful, but in practice it suffers from a throughput problem: if all wrongs are to be dealt with after-the-fact (in litigation) then all the miscreants have to do is stall (easy to do when you can hire 100x the legal power) &amp; presto: justice delayed is justice denied.</p><p>if we know that people will abuse their power, then we must try to prevent irreparable harm in the 1st place. we don't let people dump toxic waste into streams; relying on litigation to solve known problems is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>libertarianism is wonderful , but in practice it suffers from a throughput problem : if all wrongs are to be dealt with after-the-fact ( in litigation ) then all the miscreants have to do is stall ( easy to do when you can hire 100x the legal power ) &amp; presto : justice delayed is justice denied.if we know that people will abuse their power , then we must try to prevent irreparable harm in the 1st place .
we do n't let people dump toxic waste into streams ; relying on litigation to solve known problems is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>libertarianism is wonderful, but in practice it suffers from a throughput problem: if all wrongs are to be dealt with after-the-fact (in litigation) then all the miscreants have to do is stall (easy to do when you can hire 100x the legal power) &amp; presto: justice delayed is justice denied.if we know that people will abuse their power, then we must try to prevent irreparable harm in the 1st place.
we don't let people dump toxic waste into streams; relying on litigation to solve known problems is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315410</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259831700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1, Insightful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 , Insightful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1, Insightful</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312790</id>
	<title>Re:government regulation -- Huh?</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1259864880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself.</p></div><p>I read the entire article and came to EXACTLY the opposite conclusion.  The article lays out how Jay Gould took over the railroad, the telegraph, Western Union and the AP in a brilliantly-executed series of buyouts, stock price manipulations, information suppression, and other monopolistic practices.  It was only when Congress finally passed a law that the telegraph was a "common carrier", just like the mails, that the monopoly was busted.</p><p>To me, it's as clear as day that ALL forms of communication technology -- mail, telegrpaph, radio, TV, the internet, the Next Big Thing -- are common carriers because the right to speech has a dependency on communication.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting enough that according to that article , the reason for the existence of " monopolies " on the telegraph was the government itself.I read the entire article and came to EXACTLY the opposite conclusion .
The article lays out how Jay Gould took over the railroad , the telegraph , Western Union and the AP in a brilliantly-executed series of buyouts , stock price manipulations , information suppression , and other monopolistic practices .
It was only when Congress finally passed a law that the telegraph was a " common carrier " , just like the mails , that the monopoly was busted.To me , it 's as clear as day that ALL forms of communication technology -- mail , telegrpaph , radio , TV , the internet , the Next Big Thing -- are common carriers because the right to speech has a dependency on communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself.I read the entire article and came to EXACTLY the opposite conclusion.
The article lays out how Jay Gould took over the railroad, the telegraph, Western Union and the AP in a brilliantly-executed series of buyouts, stock price manipulations, information suppression, and other monopolistic practices.
It was only when Congress finally passed a law that the telegraph was a "common carrier", just like the mails, that the monopoly was busted.To me, it's as clear as day that ALL forms of communication technology -- mail, telegrpaph, radio, TV, the internet, the Next Big Thing -- are common carriers because the right to speech has a dependency on communication.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308684</id>
	<title>The Count of Monte Cristo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who haven't read it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who have n't read it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who haven't read it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312630</id>
	<title>So the moral of the story...</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1259864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the moral of the story is:
<ul>
<li> The corruption of the AP didn't change the outcome of the election;</li>
<li> The Western Union/Gould telegraph monopoly quickly became marginalized by the emergence of radio technology</li>
</ul><p>
Seems like the free market won out again.  Look at the kind of free speech we have on the internet.  Even if you're worried about retribution, any geek worth his salt knows of at least a half dozen anonymous proxies.  It's a lot easier to post unpopular ideas on the internet than in RL.  Does anyone really think that if we let bureaucrats control the internet, we'll be MORE free?  Do you think that Obama's going to let people post nude fakes of Michelle on 4chan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/?  Will Pelosi like it if people criticize the way she's running the House on LGF? Isn't this the same forum that wants to REDUCE the US government's control of the IANA?
</p><p>
If you think having big corporations in charge of industries is bad, just try the government.  As George Washington said, "Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force.  It makes a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."  Definitely a big attitude difference from president #1 to president #44.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the moral of the story is : The corruption of the AP did n't change the outcome of the election ; The Western Union/Gould telegraph monopoly quickly became marginalized by the emergence of radio technology Seems like the free market won out again .
Look at the kind of free speech we have on the internet .
Even if you 're worried about retribution , any geek worth his salt knows of at least a half dozen anonymous proxies .
It 's a lot easier to post unpopular ideas on the internet than in RL .
Does anyone really think that if we let bureaucrats control the internet , we 'll be MORE free ?
Do you think that Obama 's going to let people post nude fakes of Michelle on 4chan /b/ ?
Will Pelosi like it if people criticize the way she 's running the House on LGF ?
Is n't this the same forum that wants to REDUCE the US government 's control of the IANA ?
If you think having big corporations in charge of industries is bad , just try the government .
As George Washington said , " Government is not eloquence , it is not reason ; it is force .
It makes a dangerous servant , and a fearful master .
" Definitely a big attitude difference from president # 1 to president # 44 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the moral of the story is:

 The corruption of the AP didn't change the outcome of the election;
 The Western Union/Gould telegraph monopoly quickly became marginalized by the emergence of radio technology

Seems like the free market won out again.
Look at the kind of free speech we have on the internet.
Even if you're worried about retribution, any geek worth his salt knows of at least a half dozen anonymous proxies.
It's a lot easier to post unpopular ideas on the internet than in RL.
Does anyone really think that if we let bureaucrats control the internet, we'll be MORE free?
Do you think that Obama's going to let people post nude fakes of Michelle on 4chan /b/?
Will Pelosi like it if people criticize the way she's running the House on LGF?
Isn't this the same forum that wants to REDUCE the US government's control of the IANA?
If you think having big corporations in charge of industries is bad, just try the government.
As George Washington said, "Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force.
It makes a dangerous servant, and a fearful master.
"  Definitely a big attitude difference from president #1 to president #44.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309406</id>
	<title>Net neutrality could violate the US Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imposing net neutrality may very well violate the takings clause of the US Constitution.</p><p>Spin on all you want about government subsidies to telcos, but the fact is those telcos went and spent their own money on their infrastructure, and based how much they spent on charging for traffic across their networks in certain ways.</p><p>Now, if the government imposes net neutrality, the government will be significanly reducing the revenue-producing value of the telco's property. And that raises very serious questions regarding the takings clause of the US Constitution.</p><p>Like I said, you can sit and spin all you want on rants about "government subsidies to telcos", but you can't get around the facts that Verizon borrowed billions of dollars to pay for their FIOS network, that Verizon owns their FIOS network, and that it's Verizon on the hook for paying back the banks with the revenue their FIOS network is going to generate - revenues based on a business model that does not include net neutrality.</p><p>And never forget - the only one who will win if net neutrality is imposed are the lawyers.</p><p>Because the only way the US government can impose "fairness" is with tens of thousands of pages of regulations, all to be litigated over.</p><p>Does anyone with a brain <b>REALLY</b> think that tens of thousands of pages of government regulations will make the internet <b>BETTER</b>?  Or are they just trying to spin things so that the playing field gets tilted to send more money their way?  Remember, "do-no-evil" (yeah, right) Google's founders have their own private jumbo jet they fly around in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imposing net neutrality may very well violate the takings clause of the US Constitution.Spin on all you want about government subsidies to telcos , but the fact is those telcos went and spent their own money on their infrastructure , and based how much they spent on charging for traffic across their networks in certain ways.Now , if the government imposes net neutrality , the government will be significanly reducing the revenue-producing value of the telco 's property .
And that raises very serious questions regarding the takings clause of the US Constitution.Like I said , you can sit and spin all you want on rants about " government subsidies to telcos " , but you ca n't get around the facts that Verizon borrowed billions of dollars to pay for their FIOS network , that Verizon owns their FIOS network , and that it 's Verizon on the hook for paying back the banks with the revenue their FIOS network is going to generate - revenues based on a business model that does not include net neutrality.And never forget - the only one who will win if net neutrality is imposed are the lawyers.Because the only way the US government can impose " fairness " is with tens of thousands of pages of regulations , all to be litigated over.Does anyone with a brain REALLY think that tens of thousands of pages of government regulations will make the internet BETTER ?
Or are they just trying to spin things so that the playing field gets tilted to send more money their way ?
Remember , " do-no-evil " ( yeah , right ) Google 's founders have their own private jumbo jet they fly around in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imposing net neutrality may very well violate the takings clause of the US Constitution.Spin on all you want about government subsidies to telcos, but the fact is those telcos went and spent their own money on their infrastructure, and based how much they spent on charging for traffic across their networks in certain ways.Now, if the government imposes net neutrality, the government will be significanly reducing the revenue-producing value of the telco's property.
And that raises very serious questions regarding the takings clause of the US Constitution.Like I said, you can sit and spin all you want on rants about "government subsidies to telcos", but you can't get around the facts that Verizon borrowed billions of dollars to pay for their FIOS network, that Verizon owns their FIOS network, and that it's Verizon on the hook for paying back the banks with the revenue their FIOS network is going to generate - revenues based on a business model that does not include net neutrality.And never forget - the only one who will win if net neutrality is imposed are the lawyers.Because the only way the US government can impose "fairness" is with tens of thousands of pages of regulations, all to be litigated over.Does anyone with a brain REALLY think that tens of thousands of pages of government regulations will make the internet BETTER?
Or are they just trying to spin things so that the playing field gets tilted to send more money their way?
Remember, "do-no-evil" (yeah, right) Google's founders have their own private jumbo jet they fly around in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309882</id>
	<title>Re:No common sense</title>
	<author>vcgodinich</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You put yourself in the situation that your and your families welfare depends on a single service provided by a single company. In that regard, every company in the country should be regulated as someone could back themselves into a corner and claim persecution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You put yourself in the situation that your and your families welfare depends on a single service provided by a single company .
In that regard , every company in the country should be regulated as someone could back themselves into a corner and claim persecution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You put yourself in the situation that your and your families welfare depends on a single service provided by a single company.
In that regard, every company in the country should be regulated as someone could back themselves into a corner and claim persecution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314382</id>
	<title>Re:Worst argument EVAR</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259870820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enforcement of contracts makes business possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enforcement of contracts makes business possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enforcement of contracts makes business possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309386</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1259849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting. For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.</p></div><p>If you think that's our species' natural state then I hope to Odin you don't live anywhere near me as you sound like a sociopath (after all, people tend to think others will act just like they would in the same situation).</p><p>Or maybe you've never lived through a blackout or natural disaster and don't really know, first hand, how people react. My experience with both is that people become <i>more</i> friendly to each other, not less, after such an event. I lived through the LA quake in '92, and for days afterward it was so much more pleasant driving around Los Angeles than ever before or since. People would actually wave each other through stop lights that were still out. In LA! The city famous for its freeway shootings.</p><p>You may want to rethink your view of humanity. It's seriously out of joint with what I've seen of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their " natural " state , robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting .
For references , see looters in natural disasters , crime reports during blackouts , etc.If you think that 's our species ' natural state then I hope to Odin you do n't live anywhere near me as you sound like a sociopath ( after all , people tend to think others will act just like they would in the same situation ) .Or maybe you 've never lived through a blackout or natural disaster and do n't really know , first hand , how people react .
My experience with both is that people become more friendly to each other , not less , after such an event .
I lived through the LA quake in '92 , and for days afterward it was so much more pleasant driving around Los Angeles than ever before or since .
People would actually wave each other through stop lights that were still out .
In LA !
The city famous for its freeway shootings.You may want to rethink your view of humanity .
It 's seriously out of joint with what I 've seen of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting.
For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.If you think that's our species' natural state then I hope to Odin you don't live anywhere near me as you sound like a sociopath (after all, people tend to think others will act just like they would in the same situation).Or maybe you've never lived through a blackout or natural disaster and don't really know, first hand, how people react.
My experience with both is that people become more friendly to each other, not less, after such an event.
I lived through the LA quake in '92, and for days afterward it was so much more pleasant driving around Los Angeles than ever before or since.
People would actually wave each other through stop lights that were still out.
In LA!
The city famous for its freeway shootings.You may want to rethink your view of humanity.
It's seriously out of joint with what I've seen of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308674</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>qazsedcft</author>
	<datestamp>1259837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally, I'm against the free for all suggested by libertarians, but here I must disagree with you. Information is the key to power. The proper way of handling this is to hand the power back to the people. What we need is to redesign the whole thing so that it's completely unblockable. For example, suppose devices were communicating directly with each other and you had just a bunch of interconnected wi-fi routers forming a global network with no large-scale infrastructure. This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally , I 'm against the free for all suggested by libertarians , but here I must disagree with you .
Information is the key to power .
The proper way of handling this is to hand the power back to the people .
What we need is to redesign the whole thing so that it 's completely unblockable .
For example , suppose devices were communicating directly with each other and you had just a bunch of interconnected wi-fi routers forming a global network with no large-scale infrastructure .
This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally, I'm against the free for all suggested by libertarians, but here I must disagree with you.
Information is the key to power.
The proper way of handling this is to hand the power back to the people.
What we need is to redesign the whole thing so that it's completely unblockable.
For example, suppose devices were communicating directly with each other and you had just a bunch of interconnected wi-fi routers forming a global network with no large-scale infrastructure.
This is the kind of thing we should be looking to build instead of asking governments to protect our right to free information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309586</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1259851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an interesting analogy.</p><p>I am completely against the idea the ISP's should be able to charge high bandwidth websites a premium because I cant help but think they would abuse this but it does remind me of the following: Here in the UK we require large supermarkets and shopping malls to pay the local council some money to upgrade the local road system to cope with any increase in the volume of traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an interesting analogy.I am completely against the idea the ISP 's should be able to charge high bandwidth websites a premium because I cant help but think they would abuse this but it does remind me of the following : Here in the UK we require large supermarkets and shopping malls to pay the local council some money to upgrade the local road system to cope with any increase in the volume of traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an interesting analogy.I am completely against the idea the ISP's should be able to charge high bandwidth websites a premium because I cant help but think they would abuse this but it does remind me of the following: Here in the UK we require large supermarkets and shopping malls to pay the local council some money to upgrade the local road system to cope with any increase in the volume of traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310250</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259856180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?  Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?</p></div><p>We are not arguing over who should be allowed to throttle internet traffic. We are arguing over whether anybody should be allowed to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I want sysadmins regulating their company's services...not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes.</p>  </div><p>Not an option. The policies will be set by the people who run the company. They also happen to be the same people who are attempting to bribe politicians. Who do you trust more. The politician who may be getting bribed, or the guy who is definitely doing the bribery?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The internet isn't a right or a life necessity.  It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television,</p></div><p>The car analogy is close to correct, because if you cannot find transportation of any kind, then you cannot go to work. The internet is much more than a luxury. It is something that many of us, myself included, must have as terms of our employment. It is also something that society as a whole needs to assure that the next generation of children will be competitive in the information-based economy that the first world is moving toward. (BTW, one person can get buy without internet access, just as one person can get by without electricity or running water. That does not diminish its' importance to society).</p><p><div class="quote"><p> and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar.</p></div><p>There is no free market when it comes to internet access, in many, if not most, areas. Your choices are "broadband through one ISP. Take it or leave it".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is.  There's no incentive to please you as a customer.</p></div><p>Politicians can be voted out of office.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  You're a citizen who will do what it says.</p><p>Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?  We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.</p></div><p>This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Not a damn thing. Until the cable companies stop respecting each others fiefdoms, and start competing for my business, this is not about capitalism, the free market, or any other pseudo-patriotic catch-phrase you can come up with.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is.  Uh-huh.</p></div><p>And history has shown that unregulated markets can be even more unfair, untrustworthy, and corrupt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of ?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong ? We are not arguing over who should be allowed to throttle internet traffic .
We are arguing over whether anybody should be allowed to.I want sysadmins regulating their company 's services...not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor 's wishes .
Not an option .
The policies will be set by the people who run the company .
They also happen to be the same people who are attempting to bribe politicians .
Who do you trust more .
The politician who may be getting bribed , or the guy who is definitely doing the bribery ? The internet is n't a right or a life necessity .
It 's a convenient service you pay for , like having a car or a television,The car analogy is close to correct , because if you can not find transportation of any kind , then you can not go to work .
The internet is much more than a luxury .
It is something that many of us , myself included , must have as terms of our employment .
It is also something that society as a whole needs to assure that the next generation of children will be competitive in the information-based economy that the first world is moving toward .
( BTW , one person can get buy without internet access , just as one person can get by without electricity or running water .
That does not diminish its ' importance to society ) .
and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company 's livelihood depends on your dollar.There is no free market when it comes to internet access , in many , if not most , areas .
Your choices are " broadband through one ISP .
Take it or leave it " .
A government , on the other hand , already forces you to pay it through taxes , and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it 's not beholden to the law like the free market is .
There 's no incentive to please you as a customer.Politicians can be voted out of office .
You 're a citizen who will do what it says.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power , please ?
We get it , you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market .
Not a damn thing .
Until the cable companies stop respecting each others fiefdoms , and start competing for my business , this is not about capitalism , the free market , or any other pseudo-patriotic catch-phrase you can come up with .
Yep , history sure has shown how pure , fair , reliable , trustworthy , and incorruptible the government is .
Uh-huh.And history has shown that unregulated markets can be even more unfair , untrustworthy , and corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?We are not arguing over who should be allowed to throttle internet traffic.
We are arguing over whether anybody should be allowed to.I want sysadmins regulating their company's services...not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes.
Not an option.
The policies will be set by the people who run the company.
They also happen to be the same people who are attempting to bribe politicians.
Who do you trust more.
The politician who may be getting bribed, or the guy who is definitely doing the bribery?The internet isn't a right or a life necessity.
It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television,The car analogy is close to correct, because if you cannot find transportation of any kind, then you cannot go to work.
The internet is much more than a luxury.
It is something that many of us, myself included, must have as terms of our employment.
It is also something that society as a whole needs to assure that the next generation of children will be competitive in the information-based economy that the first world is moving toward.
(BTW, one person can get buy without internet access, just as one person can get by without electricity or running water.
That does not diminish its' importance to society).
and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar.There is no free market when it comes to internet access, in many, if not most, areas.
Your choices are "broadband through one ISP.
Take it or leave it".
A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is.
There's no incentive to please you as a customer.Politicians can be voted out of office.
You're a citizen who will do what it says.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market.
Not a damn thing.
Until the cable companies stop respecting each others fiefdoms, and start competing for my business, this is not about capitalism, the free market, or any other pseudo-patriotic catch-phrase you can come up with.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is.
Uh-huh.And history has shown that unregulated markets can be even more unfair, untrustworthy, and corrupt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310546</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always argued that corporations should not be treated as a 'person'.  the best and absolute worst thing invented by man is the corporation (as exists in the US).  (banking/banks is a contender; at least Jefferson thought so.)  The founding fathers were very concerned with governments but could never predict the likes of [large] corporations as they exist today.  (bank corporations, anyone?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always argued that corporations should not be treated as a 'person' .
the best and absolute worst thing invented by man is the corporation ( as exists in the US ) .
( banking/banks is a contender ; at least Jefferson thought so .
) The founding fathers were very concerned with governments but could never predict the likes of [ large ] corporations as they exist today .
( bank corporations , anyone ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always argued that corporations should not be treated as a 'person'.
the best and absolute worst thing invented by man is the corporation (as exists in the US).
(banking/banks is a contender; at least Jefferson thought so.
)  The founding fathers were very concerned with governments but could never predict the likes of [large] corporations as they exist today.
(bank corporations, anyone?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310464</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>kz45</author>
	<datestamp>1259857200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Rightful" regulation? "Its" traffic!? It's MY traffic they're "regulating" dammit. If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap, I will."</p><p>Christ.  I wish more people thought this way about taxes.</p><p>"I'd rather it not come to that, but they started this. They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who weren't even their customers."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and how are they going to do this exactly?</p><p>"It's only you crazy libertarians (unlike the sensible ones) who get bent out of shape over this, and there aren't very many of you, given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls. That, or you're too afraid of the government to vote."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and it's the sheep liberals who won't question the government.  Even when people bring up very valid points, they are demonized for loving corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Rightful " regulation ?
" Its " traffic ! ?
It 's MY traffic they 're " regulating " dammit .
If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap , I will. " Christ .
I wish more people thought this way about taxes .
" I 'd rather it not come to that , but they started this .
They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who were n't even their customers .
" ..and how are they going to do this exactly ?
" It 's only you crazy libertarians ( unlike the sensible ones ) who get bent out of shape over this , and there are n't very many of you , given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls .
That , or you 're too afraid of the government to vote .
" ..and it 's the sheep liberals who wo n't question the government .
Even when people bring up very valid points , they are demonized for loving corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Rightful" regulation?
"Its" traffic!?
It's MY traffic they're "regulating" dammit.
If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap, I will."Christ.
I wish more people thought this way about taxes.
"I'd rather it not come to that, but they started this.
They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who weren't even their customers.
" ..and how are they going to do this exactly?
"It's only you crazy libertarians (unlike the sensible ones) who get bent out of shape over this, and there aren't very many of you, given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls.
That, or you're too afraid of the government to vote.
" ..and it's the sheep liberals who won't question the government.
Even when people bring up very valid points, they are demonized for loving corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309376</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1259849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and a million executives howled with laughter, patted each other on the back, and spoke their congratulations about the latest advertising campaign...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government .
" ...and a million executives howled with laughter , patted each other on the back , and spoke their congratulations about the latest advertising campaign.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.
" ...and a million executives howled with laughter, patted each other on the back, and spoke their congratulations about the latest advertising campaign...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</id>
	<title>What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?  Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?  It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.</p><p>And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?  Give me a fucking break.  I want sysadmins regulating their company's services--which they have every right to do--not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes.  The internet isn't a right or a life necessity.  It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television, and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar.  A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is.  There's no incentive to please you as a customer.  You're a citizen who will do what it says.</p><p>Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?  We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.  Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is.  Uh-huh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of ?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong ?
It 's made of people too , but they 're privileged people who are making the laws , which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.And are you seriously comparing an ISP 's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting ?
Give me a fucking break .
I want sysadmins regulating their company 's services--which they have every right to do--not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor 's wishes .
The internet is n't a right or a life necessity .
It 's a convenient service you pay for , like having a car or a television , and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company 's livelihood depends on your dollar .
A government , on the other hand , already forces you to pay it through taxes , and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it 's not beholden to the law like the free market is .
There 's no incentive to please you as a customer .
You 're a citizen who will do what it says.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power , please ?
We get it , you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic .
Yep , history sure has shown how pure , fair , reliable , trustworthy , and incorruptible the government is .
Uh-huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?
It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?
Give me a fucking break.
I want sysadmins regulating their company's services--which they have every right to do--not bribed politicians who are above the law and will cater to every big financial donor's wishes.
The internet isn't a right or a life necessity.
It's a convenient service you pay for, like having a car or a television, and the free market keeps abuses in check because a company's livelihood depends on your dollar.
A government, on the other hand, already forces you to pay it through taxes, and it makes its own special rules for itself so that it's not beholden to the law like the free market is.
There's no incentive to please you as a customer.
You're a citizen who will do what it says.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is.
Uh-huh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309208</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I DO pay for the amount of bandwidth I use. But following your analogy. They want to be able to choose how much I pay based on who I am going to visit. Driving to our affiliates? That's free. Driving to our competition? That'll be 100$ and we'll reroute you through weird country roads that will end you in a swamp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I DO pay for the amount of bandwidth I use .
But following your analogy .
They want to be able to choose how much I pay based on who I am going to visit .
Driving to our affiliates ?
That 's free .
Driving to our competition ?
That 'll be 100 $ and we 'll reroute you through weird country roads that will end you in a swamp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I DO pay for the amount of bandwidth I use.
But following your analogy.
They want to be able to choose how much I pay based on who I am going to visit.
Driving to our affiliates?
That's free.
Driving to our competition?
That'll be 100$ and we'll reroute you through weird country roads that will end you in a swamp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311128</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about giving the government power.  You seem to think that because an organization is private, it is somehow spared from bureaucracy, waste, and abuse of power.</p><p>Any organization that doesn't have to deal with you on a personal basis needs to have a check on its power.  Both the government and your telco are both happy to take your rights away while cashing a check they forced you to mail to them.</p><p>Somehow, you've been deluded into thinking that the government itself is bad.  When the government acts poorly and gets away with it, it's because there is no check on the abuse of it's power.  The same is true of AT&amp;T or Time Warner or Comcast.</p><p>I love free markets.  But when a large monopolistic organization gets involved (public or private), your market definitely isn't free, and it's probably not even a market anymore.  And you can let people in control abuse it, or you can support regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about giving the government power .
You seem to think that because an organization is private , it is somehow spared from bureaucracy , waste , and abuse of power.Any organization that does n't have to deal with you on a personal basis needs to have a check on its power .
Both the government and your telco are both happy to take your rights away while cashing a check they forced you to mail to them.Somehow , you 've been deluded into thinking that the government itself is bad .
When the government acts poorly and gets away with it , it 's because there is no check on the abuse of it 's power .
The same is true of AT&amp;T or Time Warner or Comcast.I love free markets .
But when a large monopolistic organization gets involved ( public or private ) , your market definitely is n't free , and it 's probably not even a market anymore .
And you can let people in control abuse it , or you can support regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about giving the government power.
You seem to think that because an organization is private, it is somehow spared from bureaucracy, waste, and abuse of power.Any organization that doesn't have to deal with you on a personal basis needs to have a check on its power.
Both the government and your telco are both happy to take your rights away while cashing a check they forced you to mail to them.Somehow, you've been deluded into thinking that the government itself is bad.
When the government acts poorly and gets away with it, it's because there is no check on the abuse of it's power.
The same is true of AT&amp;T or Time Warner or Comcast.I love free markets.
But when a large monopolistic organization gets involved (public or private), your market definitely isn't free, and it's probably not even a market anymore.
And you can let people in control abuse it, or you can support regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310732</id>
	<title>Unlike any other industry</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259858280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The Internet is unlike any other industry and therefore requires special consideration. Historical arguments about how technologically-reminiscent systems behaved and were handled and interesting and worth paying attention to, but can't be translated directly.
</p><p>
What makes the Internet different is that it's a collaboration: ISPs provide access to content, but the "consumers" (customers of the ISPs) are the ones who actually provide that content. I can't think of any other industry that works that way (but I'd love to hear some examples, that might provide nice insight into the issue). I suppose you might say the same about the telegraph, and telecom in general, but it doesn't line up exactly: telegraphic and telephonic (word?) content are intended for specific recipients, not general broadcast.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is unlike any other industry and therefore requires special consideration .
Historical arguments about how technologically-reminiscent systems behaved and were handled and interesting and worth paying attention to , but ca n't be translated directly .
What makes the Internet different is that it 's a collaboration : ISPs provide access to content , but the " consumers " ( customers of the ISPs ) are the ones who actually provide that content .
I ca n't think of any other industry that works that way ( but I 'd love to hear some examples , that might provide nice insight into the issue ) .
I suppose you might say the same about the telegraph , and telecom in general , but it does n't line up exactly : telegraphic and telephonic ( word ?
) content are intended for specific recipients , not general broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The Internet is unlike any other industry and therefore requires special consideration.
Historical arguments about how technologically-reminiscent systems behaved and were handled and interesting and worth paying attention to, but can't be translated directly.
What makes the Internet different is that it's a collaboration: ISPs provide access to content, but the "consumers" (customers of the ISPs) are the ones who actually provide that content.
I can't think of any other industry that works that way (but I'd love to hear some examples, that might provide nice insight into the issue).
I suppose you might say the same about the telegraph, and telecom in general, but it doesn't line up exactly: telegraphic and telephonic (word?
) content are intended for specific recipients, not general broadcast.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308482</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever thought about learning Morse</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1259834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ever thought about learning Morse,</p></div><p>Why would you do that? The Droid/Milestone has an app for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever thought about learning Morse,Why would you do that ?
The Droid/Milestone has an app for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever thought about learning Morse,Why would you do that?
The Droid/Milestone has an app for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888</id>
	<title>government regulation</title>
	<author>wuji</author>
	<datestamp>1259841240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself. Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies. And that is exactly what this is about. Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it. And the best solution that that "Somebody" can come up with is to hand it over to the government?
That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it, somehow all the "freedoms" will go away and in the end that "Somebody" will praise the regulation because without it, it would have been much worse. Since, as the experience shows, once the government takes control of the communication channels, it is for the freedom and protection of it's users. Just look at China how well that regulation works there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting enough that according to that article , the reason for the existence of " monopolies " on the telegraph was the government itself .
Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies .
And that is exactly what this is about .
Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it .
And the best solution that that " Somebody " can come up with is to hand it over to the government ?
That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it , somehow all the " freedoms " will go away and in the end that " Somebody " will praise the regulation because without it , it would have been much worse .
Since , as the experience shows , once the government takes control of the communication channels , it is for the freedom and protection of it 's users .
Just look at China how well that regulation works there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting enough that according to that article, the reason for the existence of "monopolies" on the telegraph was the government itself.
Because there are no monopolies unless the government can protect those monopolies.
And that is exactly what this is about.
Somebody decides that someone should regulate the whole Internet because otherwise it will be abused by the powerfull entities inside it.
And the best solution that that "Somebody" can come up with is to hand it over to the government?
That government will establish monopolies to control parts of it, somehow all the "freedoms" will go away and in the end that "Somebody" will praise the regulation because without it, it would have been much worse.
Since, as the experience shows, once the government takes control of the communication channels, it is for the freedom and protection of it's users.
Just look at China how well that regulation works there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308504</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a company advertises and sells you a package for 20mbps, unlimited, you should be able to use that, without repercussions, regardless of what technology you're using. They advertised it, they sold it to you, and you are simply consuming the product.</p><p>If an ISP like Comcast has a problem living up to its advertisements, that's really too bad for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company advertises and sells you a package for 20mbps , unlimited , you should be able to use that , without repercussions , regardless of what technology you 're using .
They advertised it , they sold it to you , and you are simply consuming the product.If an ISP like Comcast has a problem living up to its advertisements , that 's really too bad for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company advertises and sells you a package for 20mbps, unlimited, you should be able to use that, without repercussions, regardless of what technology you're using.
They advertised it, they sold it to you, and you are simply consuming the product.If an ISP like Comcast has a problem living up to its advertisements, that's really too bad for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309332</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key difference between government and corporate power: governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders. That means among other things that corporations can and will ruin the lives of their employees or residents of the surrounding area (via pollution mostly) if it increases their profits, can and will bilk their customers if they can get away with it, and don't really mind a large population of unemployed, broke, desperate people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key difference between government and corporate power : governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens , whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders .
That means among other things that corporations can and will ruin the lives of their employees or residents of the surrounding area ( via pollution mostly ) if it increases their profits , can and will bilk their customers if they can get away with it , and do n't really mind a large population of unemployed , broke , desperate people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key difference between government and corporate power: governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders.
That means among other things that corporations can and will ruin the lives of their employees or residents of the surrounding area (via pollution mostly) if it increases their profits, can and will bilk their customers if they can get away with it, and don't really mind a large population of unemployed, broke, desperate people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309658</id>
	<title>A rebuttal</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259852460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic</p></div><p>No, I think your parent is more worried about the <em>wrongful</em> regulations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I want sysadmins regulating their company's services</p></div><p>That's fine, as long as the company providing those services advertises truthfully what the sysadmins are actually doing to your packets.</p><p>And, of course, as long as the two internet providers in your zip code (only one of whom offers service to your house) don't collude and offer a deliberately neutered product (i.e. no bittorent, no streaming video, no voip, no [etc.]) when they could just as easily offer the better version just because the non-neutered version competes with their own video delivery service, telephony service, or other service.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the free market keeps abuses in check</p></div><p>Right.  That works great, sometimes.  Except for tragedy of the commons.  And for providing law enforcement, emergency services, health insurance (so I hear), and in some other cases.</p><p>But the free market does keep some abuses in check.  I think it would be wise to keep abuses in check in the highly non-free internet service market as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?</p></div><p>Could you stop giving large corporations so much power, please?  Especially the ones having monopolies or duopolies...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.</p></div><p>I get it.  You hate government power and think free markets solves absolutely everything by magic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible <b>big business</b> is. Uh-huh.</p></div><p>FTFY.</p><p>See?  It's very easy to take what you say and turn it on its head.  The bad thing isn't government power vs. corporate power, but the existence of concentrated power itself.  Completely unregulated markets tend to concentrate power.  Network effects help that along.  It seems that we need even bigger power (in government) to break up concentrated power in the market.  I don't think there is an easy solution.  But blindly trusting concentrated power on one hand vs. another is a Bad Idea (TM).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And are you seriously comparing an ISP 's rightful regulation of its internet trafficNo , I think your parent is more worried about the wrongful regulations.I want sysadmins regulating their company 's servicesThat 's fine , as long as the company providing those services advertises truthfully what the sysadmins are actually doing to your packets.And , of course , as long as the two internet providers in your zip code ( only one of whom offers service to your house ) do n't collude and offer a deliberately neutered product ( i.e .
no bittorent , no streaming video , no voip , no [ etc .
] ) when they could just as easily offer the better version just because the non-neutered version competes with their own video delivery service , telephony service , or other service.the free market keeps abuses in checkRight .
That works great , sometimes .
Except for tragedy of the commons .
And for providing law enforcement , emergency services , health insurance ( so I hear ) , and in some other cases.But the free market does keep some abuses in check .
I think it would be wise to keep abuses in check in the highly non-free internet service market as well.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power , please ? Could you stop giving large corporations so much power , please ?
Especially the ones having monopolies or duopolies...We get it , you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.I get it .
You hate government power and think free markets solves absolutely everything by magic .
Yep , history sure has shown how pure , fair , reliable , trustworthy , and incorruptible big business is .
Uh-huh.FTFY.See ? It 's very easy to take what you say and turn it on its head .
The bad thing is n't government power vs. corporate power , but the existence of concentrated power itself .
Completely unregulated markets tend to concentrate power .
Network effects help that along .
It seems that we need even bigger power ( in government ) to break up concentrated power in the market .
I do n't think there is an easy solution .
But blindly trusting concentrated power on one hand vs. another is a Bad Idea ( TM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet trafficNo, I think your parent is more worried about the wrongful regulations.I want sysadmins regulating their company's servicesThat's fine, as long as the company providing those services advertises truthfully what the sysadmins are actually doing to your packets.And, of course, as long as the two internet providers in your zip code (only one of whom offers service to your house) don't collude and offer a deliberately neutered product (i.e.
no bittorent, no streaming video, no voip, no [etc.
]) when they could just as easily offer the better version just because the non-neutered version competes with their own video delivery service, telephony service, or other service.the free market keeps abuses in checkRight.
That works great, sometimes.
Except for tragedy of the commons.
And for providing law enforcement, emergency services, health insurance (so I hear), and in some other cases.But the free market does keep some abuses in check.
I think it would be wise to keep abuses in check in the highly non-free internet service market as well.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?Could you stop giving large corporations so much power, please?
Especially the ones having monopolies or duopolies...We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.I get it.
You hate government power and think free markets solves absolutely everything by magic.
Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible big business is.
Uh-huh.FTFY.See?  It's very easy to take what you say and turn it on its head.
The bad thing isn't government power vs. corporate power, but the existence of concentrated power itself.
Completely unregulated markets tend to concentrate power.
Network effects help that along.
It seems that we need even bigger power (in government) to break up concentrated power in the market.
I don't think there is an easy solution.
But blindly trusting concentrated power on one hand vs. another is a Bad Idea (TM).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309436</id>
	<title>so what we're saying is that</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259850480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we need a disruptive technology right now... such as mesh networking or white space</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need a disruptive technology right now... such as mesh networking or white space</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need a disruptive technology right now... such as mesh networking or white space</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308472</id>
	<title>so clueless!</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259834220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!</p><p>"There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. "</p><p>"Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?"</p><p>Apart from all of that, you don't even know what is being talked about here.  We are talking about REGULATING, CENSORING, and EVESDROPPING activities.</p><p>If you want to fix your Bad Analogy, you should compare this to allowing the turnpike authority to search the contents of every vehicle that enters their roadway, and also allowing them to steal and/or make substitutions for any cargo on any vehicle that enters their roadway.</p><p>There, I fixed your BAD ANALOGY for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" BadAnalogyGuy " is just so appropriate for you !
" There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents ' basement can slow traffic for everyone else .
" " Should n't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they are n't causing physical damage to the entire system ?
" Apart from all of that , you do n't even know what is being talked about here .
We are talking about REGULATING , CENSORING , and EVESDROPPING activities.If you want to fix your Bad Analogy , you should compare this to allowing the turnpike authority to search the contents of every vehicle that enters their roadway , and also allowing them to steal and/or make substitutions for any cargo on any vehicle that enters their roadway.There , I fixed your BAD ANALOGY for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BadAnalogyGuy" is just so appropriate for you!
"There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else.
""Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?
"Apart from all of that, you don't even know what is being talked about here.
We are talking about REGULATING, CENSORING, and EVESDROPPING activities.If you want to fix your Bad Analogy, you should compare this to allowing the turnpike authority to search the contents of every vehicle that enters their roadway, and also allowing them to steal and/or make substitutions for any cargo on any vehicle that enters their roadway.There, I fixed your BAD ANALOGY for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30325206</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1259948880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think more regulation is needed. But there must be an existing and legitimate regulation that is odds with the notion that Comcast would degrade Vonage traffic on its "Internet" service when it started offering a competing Comcast phone service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think more regulation is needed .
But there must be an existing and legitimate regulation that is odds with the notion that Comcast would degrade Vonage traffic on its " Internet " service when it started offering a competing Comcast phone service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think more regulation is needed.
But there must be an existing and legitimate regulation that is odds with the notion that Comcast would degrade Vonage traffic on its "Internet" service when it started offering a competing Comcast phone service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309184</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259846460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The internet isn't a right.</p></div><p>equal opportunity however is a right.  Since even minimum wage jobs now require online application, and you will not be allowed at all to submit applications on dead tree material to any place without nametags on the dress code.</p><p>The internet is just as fundamental to modern society as a telephone or vehicle, both of which, by the way, require a court order to be hindered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is n't a right.equal opportunity however is a right .
Since even minimum wage jobs now require online application , and you will not be allowed at all to submit applications on dead tree material to any place without nametags on the dress code.The internet is just as fundamental to modern society as a telephone or vehicle , both of which , by the way , require a court order to be hindered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet isn't a right.equal opportunity however is a right.
Since even minimum wage jobs now require online application, and you will not be allowed at all to submit applications on dead tree material to any place without nametags on the dress code.The internet is just as fundamental to modern society as a telephone or vehicle, both of which, by the way, require a court order to be hindered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308598</id>
	<title>Deja Vu.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Victorian-Internet-Remarkable-Nineteenth-Line/dp/0802713424" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Victorian Internet : The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century 's On-Line Pioneers [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311890</id>
	<title>Re:No common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they can make you not use a consumer/commodity connection and get a T1 line or similar from the local telco...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can make you not use a consumer/commodity connection and get a T1 line or similar from the local telco.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can make you not use a consumer/commodity connection and get a T1 line or similar from the local telco...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309360</id>
	<title>"Neutrality" and regulation</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph<br>&gt; to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading,<br>&gt; and censor criticism.</p><p>And it would have been so much better had the government done that instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The owners of the 'Victorian internet ' used their control of the telegraph &gt; to prop up monopolies , manipulate elections , facilitate insider trading , &gt; and censor criticism.And it would have been so much better had the government done that instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph&gt; to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading,&gt; and censor criticism.And it would have been so much better had the government done that instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bottom line is that you are being screwed. It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government. Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important. ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent. Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that you are being screwed .
It 's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government .
Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important .
ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content , or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent .
Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that you are being screwed.
It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government.
Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important.
ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent.
Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312492</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever thought about learning Morse</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1259863800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My preferred way to learn morse is to install a keyboard clicker that taps out the morse equivalent of every keystroke I type. Every few years I look for such an app but haven't found one yet. Anyway... I am very interested in the meta-learning aspect of this. If I just have this tapping in the "background" of my daily computer life, how long will it take to sink in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My preferred way to learn morse is to install a keyboard clicker that taps out the morse equivalent of every keystroke I type .
Every few years I look for such an app but have n't found one yet .
Anyway... I am very interested in the meta-learning aspect of this .
If I just have this tapping in the " background " of my daily computer life , how long will it take to sink in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My preferred way to learn morse is to install a keyboard clicker that taps out the morse equivalent of every keystroke I type.
Every few years I look for such an app but haven't found one yet.
Anyway... I am very interested in the meta-learning aspect of this.
If I just have this tapping in the "background" of my daily computer life, how long will it take to sink in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308536</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>ihuntrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you certainly live up to your name as the bad analogy guy, at least in my personal opinion. Large, damaging vehicles pay a tax because they cause damage that creates a hazard for other people. Something that can represent material danger. They are not taxed because they cause traffic jams and make you late to work. They aren't taxed because they spoil your wonderful view of the highway, or because they inconvenience you when you want to visit grandma or grab a bagel. <br> <br>

They pay the same tax, whether we all drive constantly and have to deal with their damage, or if we rarely drive at all. It's not really dependent on anyone else. Furthermore, they have as much access as they need to said roadways, inhibited only in ways that are in place for the material safety of others. Your analogy greatly confuses the real issues behind the two scenarios. <br> <br>

I apologize, not only for myself, but for all of those who make maximum use of a resource we are paying for. A resource that allows us to have unprecedented access to knowledge, media, and connections with our fellow human beings. I apologize to all of those who bear the inconvenience of purchasing fewer resources and expecting either too much of them, or exclusive rights to them just for being "part of the club". It's analogous to thinking you should have the roadway all to yourself so you can drive your Pinto 50 million miles per hour and rarely pay for gas. Most of all, I would like to apologize to the telecommunications providers of the world for their own inability to meet the demands of their consumers, for whatever reasons that may arise from. <br> <br>

All resources are finite. That's a simple fact that most people never take account of, save the truly poor. I grew up that way, and I'm actually rather glad for the perspective it provides me on occasion. However, I find it truly lamentable that there is so much vehemence in the argument over net neutrality, and bandwidth as a finite resource, when there are other, infinitely more pressing matters of resource consumption we should be turning our collective frustrations toward. Despite its inarguable utility, the internet is a commodity, and it speaks to the selfish nature of our species to direct so much energy toward fighting for control of it, rather than addressing what are decidedly more pressing issues. <br> <br>

With all of that said, I believe I might have earned my first unfavorable mod in the history of my account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you certainly live up to your name as the bad analogy guy , at least in my personal opinion .
Large , damaging vehicles pay a tax because they cause damage that creates a hazard for other people .
Something that can represent material danger .
They are not taxed because they cause traffic jams and make you late to work .
They are n't taxed because they spoil your wonderful view of the highway , or because they inconvenience you when you want to visit grandma or grab a bagel .
They pay the same tax , whether we all drive constantly and have to deal with their damage , or if we rarely drive at all .
It 's not really dependent on anyone else .
Furthermore , they have as much access as they need to said roadways , inhibited only in ways that are in place for the material safety of others .
Your analogy greatly confuses the real issues behind the two scenarios .
I apologize , not only for myself , but for all of those who make maximum use of a resource we are paying for .
A resource that allows us to have unprecedented access to knowledge , media , and connections with our fellow human beings .
I apologize to all of those who bear the inconvenience of purchasing fewer resources and expecting either too much of them , or exclusive rights to them just for being " part of the club " .
It 's analogous to thinking you should have the roadway all to yourself so you can drive your Pinto 50 million miles per hour and rarely pay for gas .
Most of all , I would like to apologize to the telecommunications providers of the world for their own inability to meet the demands of their consumers , for whatever reasons that may arise from .
All resources are finite .
That 's a simple fact that most people never take account of , save the truly poor .
I grew up that way , and I 'm actually rather glad for the perspective it provides me on occasion .
However , I find it truly lamentable that there is so much vehemence in the argument over net neutrality , and bandwidth as a finite resource , when there are other , infinitely more pressing matters of resource consumption we should be turning our collective frustrations toward .
Despite its inarguable utility , the internet is a commodity , and it speaks to the selfish nature of our species to direct so much energy toward fighting for control of it , rather than addressing what are decidedly more pressing issues .
With all of that said , I believe I might have earned my first unfavorable mod in the history of my account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you certainly live up to your name as the bad analogy guy, at least in my personal opinion.
Large, damaging vehicles pay a tax because they cause damage that creates a hazard for other people.
Something that can represent material danger.
They are not taxed because they cause traffic jams and make you late to work.
They aren't taxed because they spoil your wonderful view of the highway, or because they inconvenience you when you want to visit grandma or grab a bagel.
They pay the same tax, whether we all drive constantly and have to deal with their damage, or if we rarely drive at all.
It's not really dependent on anyone else.
Furthermore, they have as much access as they need to said roadways, inhibited only in ways that are in place for the material safety of others.
Your analogy greatly confuses the real issues behind the two scenarios.
I apologize, not only for myself, but for all of those who make maximum use of a resource we are paying for.
A resource that allows us to have unprecedented access to knowledge, media, and connections with our fellow human beings.
I apologize to all of those who bear the inconvenience of purchasing fewer resources and expecting either too much of them, or exclusive rights to them just for being "part of the club".
It's analogous to thinking you should have the roadway all to yourself so you can drive your Pinto 50 million miles per hour and rarely pay for gas.
Most of all, I would like to apologize to the telecommunications providers of the world for their own inability to meet the demands of their consumers, for whatever reasons that may arise from.
All resources are finite.
That's a simple fact that most people never take account of, save the truly poor.
I grew up that way, and I'm actually rather glad for the perspective it provides me on occasion.
However, I find it truly lamentable that there is so much vehemence in the argument over net neutrality, and bandwidth as a finite resource, when there are other, infinitely more pressing matters of resource consumption we should be turning our collective frustrations toward.
Despite its inarguable utility, the internet is a commodity, and it speaks to the selfish nature of our species to direct so much energy toward fighting for control of it, rather than addressing what are decidedly more pressing issues.
With all of that said, I believe I might have earned my first unfavorable mod in the history of my account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314534</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259871420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.</p></div><p>Somehow out ancestors made do without clothing or fire. That doesn't make it a good idea to do so today.</p><p>If you want government to be totally hands off, fine. I'll just dig up all those wires in MY yard and see what happens. No service for me means no free use of my property for them.</p><p>It would probably be more beneficial for everyone if they get right of way and accept an obligation for their service to be in the public interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , people made do without the internet mere decades ago.Somehow out ancestors made do without clothing or fire .
That does n't make it a good idea to do so today.If you want government to be totally hands off , fine .
I 'll just dig up all those wires in MY yard and see what happens .
No service for me means no free use of my property for them.It would probably be more beneficial for everyone if they get right of way and accept an obligation for their service to be in the public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.Somehow out ancestors made do without clothing or fire.
That doesn't make it a good idea to do so today.If you want government to be totally hands off, fine.
I'll just dig up all those wires in MY yard and see what happens.
No service for me means no free use of my property for them.It would probably be more beneficial for everyone if they get right of way and accept an obligation for their service to be in the public interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318</id>
	<title>If you ever thought about learning Morse</title>
	<author>caluml</author>
	<datestamp>1259831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: <a href="http://www.lcwo.net/" title="lcwo.net">http://www.lcwo.net/</a> [lcwo.net].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.-.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever thought about learning Morse , you can do it at this very good site : http : //www.lcwo.net/ [ lcwo.net ] .
.- .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever thought about learning Morse, you can do it at this very good site: http://www.lcwo.net/ [lcwo.net].
.-.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309108</id>
	<title>how about the closest thing we have to accountable</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.</p></div><p>except the government is bound by a constitution, and subject to at least SOME form of public accountability.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?</p> </div><p>OMG HYPERBOLE, obviously that means my point is invalid, and that people aren't really being stripped of their fundamental rights to privacy and choice, that theyre not being defrauded, that freedom of speech is not being abrogated.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.</p> </div><p>No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is. Uh-huh.</p></div><p>Let's ask the millions of jobless about which they'd rather have: ANY government beurocrat or the CEO's of AIG; shall we?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of ?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong ?
It 's made of people too , but they 're privileged people who are making the laws , which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.except the government is bound by a constitution , and subject to at least SOME form of public accountability.And are you seriously comparing an ISP 's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting ?
OMG HYPERBOLE , obviously that means my point is invalid , and that people are n't really being stripped of their fundamental rights to privacy and choice , that theyre not being defrauded , that freedom of speech is not being abrogated.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power , please ?
We get it , you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic .
No , I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes , and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government does n't go too far.Yep , history sure has shown how pure , fair , reliable , trustworthy , and incorruptible the government is .
Uh-huh.Let 's ask the millions of jobless about which they 'd rather have : ANY government beurocrat or the CEO 's of AIG ; shall we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?
It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.except the government is bound by a constitution, and subject to at least SOME form of public accountability.And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?
OMG HYPERBOLE, obviously that means my point is invalid, and that people aren't really being stripped of their fundamental rights to privacy and choice, that theyre not being defrauded, that freedom of speech is not being abrogated.Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.
No, I believe in the government stepping on corporate toes, and the the people stepping up to the ballot box to make sure the government doesn't go too far.Yep, history sure has shown how pure, fair, reliable, trustworthy, and incorruptible the government is.
Uh-huh.Let's ask the millions of jobless about which they'd rather have: ANY government beurocrat or the CEO's of AIG; shall we?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The highways of our great country are paid for communally. We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.</p><p>But some vehicles must pay extra. There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition. Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.</p><p>A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing. There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use. Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?</p><p>Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.</p><p>Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing "bandwidth abuse".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally .
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.But some vehicles must pay extra .
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition .
Since they weigh more , they must pay extra fees.A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing .
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents ' basement can slow traffic for everyone else .
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use .
Should n't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they are n't causing physical damage to the entire system ? Cry about " unlimited bandwidth plans " and the like all you want .
It 's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand .
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing " bandwidth abuse " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally.
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.But some vehicles must pay extra.
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition.
Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing.
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else.
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use.
Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want.
It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Net neutrality is a clever way of rephrasing "bandwidth abuse".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310902</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this, the "Soylent Green model" of free markets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this , the " Soylent Green model " of free markets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this, the "Soylent Green model" of free markets?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314510</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>youarelying</author>
	<datestamp>1259871300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government, because they're oh-so-neutral and objective? You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins?</p></div></blockquote><p>Straw man arguments are lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government , because they 're oh-so-neutral and objective ?
You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins ? Straw man arguments are lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution is to hand the internet over to the government, because they're oh-so-neutral and objective?
You want corrupt politicians deciding on internet traffic instead of sysadmins?Straw man arguments are lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311840</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever thought about learning Morse</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1259861940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first real job was "telegrapher/operator" for a railroad, working nights at an interlocking tower. We still had a working telegraph system, though they were no longer in actual use. When an old-timer at another tower told me he'd be happy to converse in Morse with me, I went out and bought a used Vibroplex bug with a shorting switch, and a paper tape driven thing called an Instructograph for practice.  Within a year I was fast and accurate.<br> <br>Unfortunately, what I learned was American Morse through a telegraph sounder.  Later, when I tried to learn CW, I had to clear two hurdles.  The minor one was hearing beeps not clicks. The major one was the different alphabet.  I was continually reverting to Am. Morse when sending. Never did get very good at it.<br> <br>But if land-line telegraphy ever makes a comeback, I'm all set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first real job was " telegrapher/operator " for a railroad , working nights at an interlocking tower .
We still had a working telegraph system , though they were no longer in actual use .
When an old-timer at another tower told me he 'd be happy to converse in Morse with me , I went out and bought a used Vibroplex bug with a shorting switch , and a paper tape driven thing called an Instructograph for practice .
Within a year I was fast and accurate .
Unfortunately , what I learned was American Morse through a telegraph sounder .
Later , when I tried to learn CW , I had to clear two hurdles .
The minor one was hearing beeps not clicks .
The major one was the different alphabet .
I was continually reverting to Am .
Morse when sending .
Never did get very good at it .
But if land-line telegraphy ever makes a comeback , I 'm all set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first real job was "telegrapher/operator" for a railroad, working nights at an interlocking tower.
We still had a working telegraph system, though they were no longer in actual use.
When an old-timer at another tower told me he'd be happy to converse in Morse with me, I went out and bought a used Vibroplex bug with a shorting switch, and a paper tape driven thing called an Instructograph for practice.
Within a year I was fast and accurate.
Unfortunately, what I learned was American Morse through a telegraph sounder.
Later, when I tried to learn CW, I had to clear two hurdles.
The minor one was hearing beeps not clicks.
The major one was the different alphabet.
I was continually reverting to Am.
Morse when sending.
Never did get very good at it.
But if land-line telegraphy ever makes a comeback, I'm all set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311438</id>
	<title>It's  A Choice</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259860800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Concerning NN, there's a choice before people.<br> <br>

Option 1: Allow companies the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over networks they own.<br> <br>

Option 2: Allow governments the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over all networks within their governance.<br> <br>

Option 1 gives me a number of companies, each abusing their power in their own way.  I am allowed to select from a number of choices how I wish to be abused.  Some companies may elect to offer "raw internet" as a selling point, others may offer the squashing of bandwidth hogs as a selling point.<br> <br>
Option 2 gives me a number of companies to choose from, but they are prevented from abusing their power for their own purposes.  Instead, I have only one abuser, the agency that regulates NN.  While I will not be abused by a company directly, I also have no choice in the manner or methods of my abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Concerning NN , there 's a choice before people .
Option 1 : Allow companies the ability , which they may abuse , to shape and control traffic over networks they own .
Option 2 : Allow governments the ability , which they may abuse , to shape and control traffic over all networks within their governance .
Option 1 gives me a number of companies , each abusing their power in their own way .
I am allowed to select from a number of choices how I wish to be abused .
Some companies may elect to offer " raw internet " as a selling point , others may offer the squashing of bandwidth hogs as a selling point .
Option 2 gives me a number of companies to choose from , but they are prevented from abusing their power for their own purposes .
Instead , I have only one abuser , the agency that regulates NN .
While I will not be abused by a company directly , I also have no choice in the manner or methods of my abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concerning NN, there's a choice before people.
Option 1: Allow companies the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over networks they own.
Option 2: Allow governments the ability, which they may abuse, to shape and control traffic over all networks within their governance.
Option 1 gives me a number of companies, each abusing their power in their own way.
I am allowed to select from a number of choices how I wish to be abused.
Some companies may elect to offer "raw internet" as a selling point, others may offer the squashing of bandwidth hogs as a selling point.
Option 2 gives me a number of companies to choose from, but they are prevented from abusing their power for their own purposes.
Instead, I have only one abuser, the agency that regulates NN.
While I will not be abused by a company directly, I also have no choice in the manner or methods of my abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308952</id>
	<title>Power is power and it WILL be grabbed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again let me fix that for you:</p><p>"however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a corporation known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations."</p><p>GET A CLUE.  The power is THERE and it WILL be grabbed.  It is only a question of WHO.</p><p>I would rather that the government have the power.  At least then there is at least some vague way for the people to have some sort of control over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again let me fix that for you : " however the principle is appalling to me : using force to get what you want .
This is especially true when you have a corporation known to be at least influenced ( if not controlled ) by a few powerful people and organisations .
" GET A CLUE .
The power is THERE and it WILL be grabbed .
It is only a question of WHO.I would rather that the government have the power .
At least then there is at least some vague way for the people to have some sort of control over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again let me fix that for you:"however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want.
This is especially true when you have a corporation known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.
"GET A CLUE.
The power is THERE and it WILL be grabbed.
It is only a question of WHO.I would rather that the government have the power.
At least then there is at least some vague way for the people to have some sort of control over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308606</id>
	<title>new proposal</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1259836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A give a new proposal (not new, see BadAnalogyGuy above): <p>
Regard the building of new internet highways exactly as that of new real highways. Private firms build them, profit from them for some years, then it becomes public property under the ruling of the state. After that you only need to be lucky and have a government which is not inclined towards cutting highways and roads and removing driving licenses for nonsensical reasons from the drivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A give a new proposal ( not new , see BadAnalogyGuy above ) : Regard the building of new internet highways exactly as that of new real highways .
Private firms build them , profit from them for some years , then it becomes public property under the ruling of the state .
After that you only need to be lucky and have a government which is not inclined towards cutting highways and roads and removing driving licenses for nonsensical reasons from the drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A give a new proposal (not new, see BadAnalogyGuy above): 
Regard the building of new internet highways exactly as that of new real highways.
Private firms build them, profit from them for some years, then it becomes public property under the ruling of the state.
After that you only need to be lucky and have a government which is not inclined towards cutting highways and roads and removing driving licenses for nonsensical reasons from the drivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310944</id>
	<title>I get it - information wants to be free</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1259859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism.</p></div></blockquote><p>And the only way to counter that is to make all communications open to all... Yes, TFA's author probably didn't mean it. But this is the only conclusion from the article's write-up, that doesn't dismiss the entire piece as just a bad analogy...

</p><p>Because as long as certain communications remain private, all those evil things listed will remain perfectly possible &mdash; easy, in fact... (And the baby seals will keep dying too...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The owners of the 'Victorian internet ' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies , manipulate elections , facilitate insider trading , and censor criticism.And the only way to counter that is to make all communications open to all... Yes , TFA 's author probably did n't mean it .
But this is the only conclusion from the article 's write-up , that does n't dismiss the entire piece as just a bad analogy.. . Because as long as certain communications remain private , all those evil things listed will remain perfectly possible    easy , in fact... ( And the baby seals will keep dying too... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The owners of the 'Victorian internet' used their control of the telegraph to prop up monopolies, manipulate elections, facilitate insider trading, and censor criticism.And the only way to counter that is to make all communications open to all... Yes, TFA's author probably didn't mean it.
But this is the only conclusion from the article's write-up, that doesn't dismiss the entire piece as just a bad analogy...

Because as long as certain communications remain private, all those evil things listed will remain perfectly possible — easy, in fact... (And the baby seals will keep dying too...)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259873940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you think certain groups are so pushing against it? Telcos, news networks... It's no coincidence that the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think certain groups are so pushing against it ?
Telcos , news networks... It 's no coincidence that the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think certain groups are so pushing against it?
Telcos, news networks... It's no coincidence that the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311544</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Out of curiosity, are you willing to carry your obvious hatred of government to its logical conclusion, which is naturally an anarchist "state". Personally, I agree with (a watered down version of) your general idea that government regulation has a lot of associated dangers. But until people are ready and willing to live without<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/any/ government at all, certain government controls are necessary to ensure reasonable quality of life for everybody. It's really not a situation where an continuum of compromises is effective: a little bit of government regulation isn't almost as good as no government, because that little bit of regulation demands a chain reaction of follow-up regulations in order to keep things balanced. For instance, you can't reasonably regulate the price of milk without somehow regulating the cost of producing it. Tell farmer's they can only charge 1$ a gallon without ensuring that they can produce it for less, and you end up with a lot of dead dairy farmers and no milk. I only ask because most free marketeers don't consider themselves anarchists, which is half-assed if you ask me.
</p><p>
Anyway, I don't know where you're living that cars, televisions, and Internet access are simply conveniences that you could so easily choose to live without if the price started getting too high. Most people need cars to get to work, and the Internet is becoming increasingly more important for work, commerce, and everyday life (I'm not going to try to argue on behalf of TV; total mind rot). Sure, if the prices were completely unreasonable, then they become unaffordable luxuries, but within a sizeable margin the providers have quite a bit of room to screw you sideways. It's just short sighted to think that people will only pay up to what they feel comfortable with for important amenities. For things that play a major role in your everyday life, you're going to continue to pay for them until it really starts to hurt. Look what happened with gas prices? How many people actually cut down significantly on their consumption when gas hit 5$/gal? There's an expression on the tip of my fingers...something about short and curlies, I think.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , are you willing to carry your obvious hatred of government to its logical conclusion , which is naturally an anarchist " state " .
Personally , I agree with ( a watered down version of ) your general idea that government regulation has a lot of associated dangers .
But until people are ready and willing to live without /any/ government at all , certain government controls are necessary to ensure reasonable quality of life for everybody .
It 's really not a situation where an continuum of compromises is effective : a little bit of government regulation is n't almost as good as no government , because that little bit of regulation demands a chain reaction of follow-up regulations in order to keep things balanced .
For instance , you ca n't reasonably regulate the price of milk without somehow regulating the cost of producing it .
Tell farmer 's they can only charge 1 $ a gallon without ensuring that they can produce it for less , and you end up with a lot of dead dairy farmers and no milk .
I only ask because most free marketeers do n't consider themselves anarchists , which is half-assed if you ask me .
Anyway , I do n't know where you 're living that cars , televisions , and Internet access are simply conveniences that you could so easily choose to live without if the price started getting too high .
Most people need cars to get to work , and the Internet is becoming increasingly more important for work , commerce , and everyday life ( I 'm not going to try to argue on behalf of TV ; total mind rot ) .
Sure , if the prices were completely unreasonable , then they become unaffordable luxuries , but within a sizeable margin the providers have quite a bit of room to screw you sideways .
It 's just short sighted to think that people will only pay up to what they feel comfortable with for important amenities .
For things that play a major role in your everyday life , you 're going to continue to pay for them until it really starts to hurt .
Look what happened with gas prices ?
How many people actually cut down significantly on their consumption when gas hit 5 $ /gal ?
There 's an expression on the tip of my fingers...something about short and curlies , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Out of curiosity, are you willing to carry your obvious hatred of government to its logical conclusion, which is naturally an anarchist "state".
Personally, I agree with (a watered down version of) your general idea that government regulation has a lot of associated dangers.
But until people are ready and willing to live without /any/ government at all, certain government controls are necessary to ensure reasonable quality of life for everybody.
It's really not a situation where an continuum of compromises is effective: a little bit of government regulation isn't almost as good as no government, because that little bit of regulation demands a chain reaction of follow-up regulations in order to keep things balanced.
For instance, you can't reasonably regulate the price of milk without somehow regulating the cost of producing it.
Tell farmer's they can only charge 1$ a gallon without ensuring that they can produce it for less, and you end up with a lot of dead dairy farmers and no milk.
I only ask because most free marketeers don't consider themselves anarchists, which is half-assed if you ask me.
Anyway, I don't know where you're living that cars, televisions, and Internet access are simply conveniences that you could so easily choose to live without if the price started getting too high.
Most people need cars to get to work, and the Internet is becoming increasingly more important for work, commerce, and everyday life (I'm not going to try to argue on behalf of TV; total mind rot).
Sure, if the prices were completely unreasonable, then they become unaffordable luxuries, but within a sizeable margin the providers have quite a bit of room to screw you sideways.
It's just short sighted to think that people will only pay up to what they feel comfortable with for important amenities.
For things that play a major role in your everyday life, you're going to continue to pay for them until it really starts to hurt.
Look what happened with gas prices?
How many people actually cut down significantly on their consumption when gas hit 5$/gal?
There's an expression on the tip of my fingers...something about short and curlies, I think.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</id>
	<title>The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259833140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people seem to allow this to slip by, but the "free market" is composed of "actors", or PEOPLE.</p><p>When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting. For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.</p><p>In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.</p><p>People who provide internet services will abuse any way they can to gain more money, power, and control. (the same goes for software, medical insurance, mass media, commodities, you name it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people seem to allow this to slip by , but the " free market " is composed of " actors " , or PEOPLE.When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their " natural " state , robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting .
For references , see looters in natural disasters , crime reports during blackouts , etc.In the marketplace , without regulation , people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.People who provide internet services will abuse any way they can to gain more money , power , and control .
( the same goes for software , medical insurance , mass media , commodities , you name it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people seem to allow this to slip by, but the "free market" is composed of "actors", or PEOPLE.When you remove law enforcement from an area people revert back to their "natural" state, robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting.
For references, see looters in natural disasters, crime reports during blackouts, etc.In the marketplace, without regulation, people with more power will perpetrate this in people with less.People who provide internet services will abuse any way they can to gain more money, power, and control.
(the same goes for software, medical insurance, mass media, commodities, you name it)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308296</id>
	<title>So many differences, it doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing the Internet to the Telegraph?</p><p>I would have chosen a more appropriate comparison like the regrowth of injured legs on starfish, but maybe that's just me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing the Internet to the Telegraph ? I would have chosen a more appropriate comparison like the regrowth of injured legs on starfish , but maybe that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing the Internet to the Telegraph?I would have chosen a more appropriate comparison like the regrowth of injured legs on starfish, but maybe that's just me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308656</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1259837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The highways of our great country are paid for communally. We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them. But some vehicles must pay extra. There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition. Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.</p></div><p>Sounds like a great model for Internet and fixed charge for a given amount of bandwidth, no matter what it is used for, will certainly be allowed by network neutrality regulations. Now imagine that the road was privately owned and declared that trucks transporting Pepsi can disregard the speed limits and pay less than those transporting Coke. Or that only heterosexual drivers are allowed to use the highway. Wouldn't you want some regulation then?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.</p></div><p>Sure, however "people" you are talking about are usually websites that return large amount of data to the browser. Since users have little control or understanding of how much data will be transferred when they type a URL, it would make more sense to "curtail" the server side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally .
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them .
But some vehicles must pay extra .
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition .
Since they weigh more , they must pay extra fees.Sounds like a great model for Internet and fixed charge for a given amount of bandwidth , no matter what it is used for , will certainly be allowed by network neutrality regulations .
Now imagine that the road was privately owned and declared that trucks transporting Pepsi can disregard the speed limits and pay less than those transporting Coke .
Or that only heterosexual drivers are allowed to use the highway .
Would n't you want some regulation then ? Cry about " unlimited bandwidth plans " and the like all you want .
It 's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand .
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Sure , however " people " you are talking about are usually websites that return large amount of data to the browser .
Since users have little control or understanding of how much data will be transferred when they type a URL , it would make more sense to " curtail " the server side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The highways of our great country are paid for communally.
We all pay a little in taxes and we all get the right to drive on them.
But some vehicles must pay extra.
There are weigh stations on our highways to make sure that those drivers who cause extra damage to the roads pay their fair share to help keep the roads in pristine condition.
Since they weigh more, they must pay extra fees.Sounds like a great model for Internet and fixed charge for a given amount of bandwidth, no matter what it is used for, will certainly be allowed by network neutrality regulations.
Now imagine that the road was privately owned and declared that trucks transporting Pepsi can disregard the speed limits and pay less than those transporting Coke.
Or that only heterosexual drivers are allowed to use the highway.
Wouldn't you want some regulation then?Cry about "unlimited bandwidth plans" and the like all you want.
It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The issue is whether people whose usage habits affect others should have their activities curtailed to create a more balanced environment for everyone.Sure, however "people" you are talking about are usually websites that return large amount of data to the browser.
Since users have little control or understanding of how much data will be transferred when they type a URL, it would make more sense to "curtail" the server side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>GrpA</author>
	<datestamp>1259832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it's just because they see it as another revenue stream ( ie, Why should google make all that money from using our services, without paying us for the privilege. How can we charge them?)</p><p>I don't think the average telco exec is bright enough to see the myriad of ways that they can abuse the situation until they actually manifest. After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.</p><p>GrpA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it 's just because they see it as another revenue stream ( ie , Why should google make all that money from using our services , without paying us for the privilege .
How can we charge them ?
) I do n't think the average telco exec is bright enough to see the myriad of ways that they can abuse the situation until they actually manifest .
After all , being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.GrpA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it's just because they see it as another revenue stream ( ie, Why should google make all that money from using our services, without paying us for the privilege.
How can we charge them?
)I don't think the average telco exec is bright enough to see the myriad of ways that they can abuse the situation until they actually manifest.
After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.GrpA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311396</id>
	<title>I really don't know which is worse...</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1259860680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is worse... the analogy between telegraph and internet; or the assertion that because one particular arrangement that didn't include "network neutrality" regulation led to abuse, therefore "network neutrality" regulation is the only way to prevent abuse (or would even be sufficient to do so)?</p><p>When we try to regulate technical procedures, we fail.  If we want to win, we should look instead at regulating business practices.  "Without NN companies can double-charge"?  Ok, regulate double-charging.  "Without NN you can't be sure you get what you paid for"?  Ok, regulate not delivering what the customer paid for.</p><p>If the only way to sell a "100mbps broadband to the providers of our choice, with 1mbps access to anyone else" were to market it as such, the issue would take care of itself.</p><p>I find it amusing that someone in this thread thinks the only people opposed to NN are in the information business.  So go ahead, call me a shill; believe if you like that someone at a telco would suggest the type of business regulations I'm talking about.  I need a good laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is worse... the analogy between telegraph and internet ; or the assertion that because one particular arrangement that did n't include " network neutrality " regulation led to abuse , therefore " network neutrality " regulation is the only way to prevent abuse ( or would even be sufficient to do so ) ? When we try to regulate technical procedures , we fail .
If we want to win , we should look instead at regulating business practices .
" Without NN companies can double-charge " ?
Ok , regulate double-charging .
" Without NN you ca n't be sure you get what you paid for " ?
Ok , regulate not delivering what the customer paid for.If the only way to sell a " 100mbps broadband to the providers of our choice , with 1mbps access to anyone else " were to market it as such , the issue would take care of itself.I find it amusing that someone in this thread thinks the only people opposed to NN are in the information business .
So go ahead , call me a shill ; believe if you like that someone at a telco would suggest the type of business regulations I 'm talking about .
I need a good laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is worse... the analogy between telegraph and internet; or the assertion that because one particular arrangement that didn't include "network neutrality" regulation led to abuse, therefore "network neutrality" regulation is the only way to prevent abuse (or would even be sufficient to do so)?When we try to regulate technical procedures, we fail.
If we want to win, we should look instead at regulating business practices.
"Without NN companies can double-charge"?
Ok, regulate double-charging.
"Without NN you can't be sure you get what you paid for"?
Ok, regulate not delivering what the customer paid for.If the only way to sell a "100mbps broadband to the providers of our choice, with 1mbps access to anyone else" were to market it as such, the issue would take care of itself.I find it amusing that someone in this thread thinks the only people opposed to NN are in the information business.
So go ahead, call me a shill; believe if you like that someone at a telco would suggest the type of business regulations I'm talking about.
I need a good laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311922</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1259862120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing. There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else. This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use. Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?</p></div><p>As long as they throttle indiscriminately.  Net neutrality isn't about keeping the ISP from managing their bandwidth, it's about keeping the ISP from becoming the gatekeeper to whatever information you get.  If the ISP gets a kickback from Microsoft to give preferential treatment to it's services (Bing for example) and reduced services levels from it's competitors (Google/Yahoo etc.) that should be illegal.  I pay for access to the internet, not just what ever parts of the internet my ISP wants me to see.
</p><p>Feel free to substitute other services;
</p><p>encarta/wikipedia
</p><p>msnbc.com/cnn.com
</p><p>etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing .
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents ' basement can slow traffic for everyone else .
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use .
Should n't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they are n't causing physical damage to the entire system ? As long as they throttle indiscriminately .
Net neutrality is n't about keeping the ISP from managing their bandwidth , it 's about keeping the ISP from becoming the gatekeeper to whatever information you get .
If the ISP gets a kickback from Microsoft to give preferential treatment to it 's services ( Bing for example ) and reduced services levels from it 's competitors ( Google/Yahoo etc .
) that should be illegal .
I pay for access to the internet , not just what ever parts of the internet my ISP wants me to see .
Feel free to substitute other services ; encarta/wikipedia msnbc.com/cnn.com etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A user who is constantly maxing his connection is doing much the same thing.
There is only finite bandwidth available to everyone and one guy in his parents' basement can slow traffic for everyone else.
This forces the ISPs to need to replace their cables more often due to the increase in average use.
Shouldn't these users be forced to pay more for their extra usage or at least be throttled to the point they aren't causing physical damage to the entire system?As long as they throttle indiscriminately.
Net neutrality isn't about keeping the ISP from managing their bandwidth, it's about keeping the ISP from becoming the gatekeeper to whatever information you get.
If the ISP gets a kickback from Microsoft to give preferential treatment to it's services (Bing for example) and reduced services levels from it's competitors (Google/Yahoo etc.
) that should be illegal.
I pay for access to the internet, not just what ever parts of the internet my ISP wants me to see.
Feel free to substitute other services;
encarta/wikipedia
msnbc.com/cnn.com
etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311704</id>
	<title>Re:No common sense</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259861580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."</p><p>No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water.  The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.</p></div><p>
Interesting. Are ISPs actually considered utilities, or are you suggesting they should be? (That's a genuine question). I think your comparison is a little lacking though: you pay the gas company for gas, not for dishwater. If they pumped dishwater, they wouldn't be holding up their end of the deal. As far as I know, you don't pay Comcast to not regulate your traffic or spy on you (I could be wrong, that may be in the service contract).
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants .
" No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water .
The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes , they can not pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble .
Interesting. Are ISPs actually considered utilities , or are you suggesting they should be ?
( That 's a genuine question ) .
I think your comparison is a little lacking though : you pay the gas company for gas , not for dishwater .
If they pumped dishwater , they would n't be holding up their end of the deal .
As far as I know , you do n't pay Comcast to not regulate your traffic or spy on you ( I could be wrong , that may be in the service contract ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants.
"No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water.
The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
Interesting. Are ISPs actually considered utilities, or are you suggesting they should be?
(That's a genuine question).
I think your comparison is a little lacking though: you pay the gas company for gas, not for dishwater.
If they pumped dishwater, they wouldn't be holding up their end of the deal.
As far as I know, you don't pay Comcast to not regulate your traffic or spy on you (I could be wrong, that may be in the service contract).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309302</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The socialist approach is pathetic.</p><p>The internet is doing quite well without regulations from the Federal government.  Certainly better and more innovative than any other regulated industry.</p><p>You pathetic leftists are so eager to give up your freedoms.  You would make perfect slaves in a dictatorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The socialist approach is pathetic.The internet is doing quite well without regulations from the Federal government .
Certainly better and more innovative than any other regulated industry.You pathetic leftists are so eager to give up your freedoms .
You would make perfect slaves in a dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The socialist approach is pathetic.The internet is doing quite well without regulations from the Federal government.
Certainly better and more innovative than any other regulated industry.You pathetic leftists are so eager to give up your freedoms.
You would make perfect slaves in a dictatorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309452</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.</p></div><p>Definitely not true. In fact, there's a pretty good <a href="http://www.amazon.com/MANAGEMENT-MACHIAVELLI-Prescription-Success-Business/dp/0136026087" title="amazon.com">book</a> [amazon.com] (as well as quite a few imitators) on the very subject of how Machiavelli is incredibly useful for understanding modern business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.Definitely not true .
In fact , there 's a pretty good book [ amazon.com ] ( as well as quite a few imitators ) on the very subject of how Machiavelli is incredibly useful for understanding modern business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.Definitely not true.
In fact, there's a pretty good book [amazon.com] (as well as quite a few imitators) on the very subject of how Machiavelli is incredibly useful for understanding modern business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312480</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been reading a little Ayn Rand lately?</p><p>Regulation has nothing to do with using "force" to get what you want.  Regulation is about setting the rules by which any market operates.  The idea of a free market is a theory.  In theory, such a thing might exist if you're selling apples at the village market.  But on a large scale, the free market always breaks down to a monopoly.  Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market since power is no longer equally distributed (necessary for a free market to operate).</p><p>As this applies to the discussion at hand - the ISP market is NOT a free market.  Never really was.  Most individuals have a single option - broadband internet or no broadband internet.  I am personally lucky - I can choose between two providers.  There is no way anyone could claim that there is competition in this system.  That means broadband internet is a utility, and should therefore be treated (regulated) like a utility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been reading a little Ayn Rand lately ? Regulation has nothing to do with using " force " to get what you want .
Regulation is about setting the rules by which any market operates .
The idea of a free market is a theory .
In theory , such a thing might exist if you 're selling apples at the village market .
But on a large scale , the free market always breaks down to a monopoly .
Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market since power is no longer equally distributed ( necessary for a free market to operate ) .As this applies to the discussion at hand - the ISP market is NOT a free market .
Never really was .
Most individuals have a single option - broadband internet or no broadband internet .
I am personally lucky - I can choose between two providers .
There is no way anyone could claim that there is competition in this system .
That means broadband internet is a utility , and should therefore be treated ( regulated ) like a utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been reading a little Ayn Rand lately?Regulation has nothing to do with using "force" to get what you want.
Regulation is about setting the rules by which any market operates.
The idea of a free market is a theory.
In theory, such a thing might exist if you're selling apples at the village market.
But on a large scale, the free market always breaks down to a monopoly.
Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market since power is no longer equally distributed (necessary for a free market to operate).As this applies to the discussion at hand - the ISP market is NOT a free market.
Never really was.
Most individuals have a single option - broadband internet or no broadband internet.
I am personally lucky - I can choose between two providers.
There is no way anyone could claim that there is competition in this system.
That means broadband internet is a utility, and should therefore be treated (regulated) like a utility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30313212</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner.</i> </p><p>Something to consider is the ingress/egress rights on a plat of survey.  No reasonable person would buy a land without a way to access it (via boat, plane, road, etc.).  So we have easements to move our person and things in and out of our property.  Also, easements exist for utility companies to provide specific services.  An easement can exist for purely private purposes.  Our land has a pipeline that serves fuel oil (airliner or something) for which we have no use.  In certain areas like marriage or home purchasing, contracts are standardized to the point that most of average intelligence can understand them (even if they fail to question the assumption of rising income and home prices or do not yet know that the bitches are crazy).</p><p>So what am I getting at?  The bitches are crazy.  Nevermind that!  Without digging into the myriad of agreements that govern a private property's packet provider (ISP), if the provider does something that violates the letter or 'spirit' which granted them use of that easement, who do you call?  Do you call the police?  Do you go to court?  Are these entities reasonably equipped to arbitrate this situation?  Efficiently?  What about broadcast frequencies?  I (as a free-market advocate) consider it my right to emit photons at an arbitrary rate and frequency (so long as I am not killing someone).  If the government limits that right - in the name of the public good - what are my assurences that private interests do not exclude the public good activity which granted them special rights?  Afterall, the slice and dice of the EM spectrum is <i>potentially</i> as arbitrary as the IP "rights".</p><p>My point, and I do have one - other than the bitches are crazy - is that there may be a type of state activity which is neither a police matter nor an OSHA-like matter saying you have to hang posters in your mom'n'pop shop.  In other words, some activities have a scope and structure which we have elected not to relegate to the police in any fashion.  Maybe we could.  Nonetheless, I suspect in Perfectly-Free World, the people I call because that crazy bitch just tried to stab me won't be the people I call because my packets are getting dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my view , regulation is not law enforcement , it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not ( and are not reasonably predicted to ) violated anyone 's rights , with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner .
Something to consider is the ingress/egress rights on a plat of survey .
No reasonable person would buy a land without a way to access it ( via boat , plane , road , etc. ) .
So we have easements to move our person and things in and out of our property .
Also , easements exist for utility companies to provide specific services .
An easement can exist for purely private purposes .
Our land has a pipeline that serves fuel oil ( airliner or something ) for which we have no use .
In certain areas like marriage or home purchasing , contracts are standardized to the point that most of average intelligence can understand them ( even if they fail to question the assumption of rising income and home prices or do not yet know that the bitches are crazy ) .So what am I getting at ?
The bitches are crazy .
Nevermind that !
Without digging into the myriad of agreements that govern a private property 's packet provider ( ISP ) , if the provider does something that violates the letter or 'spirit ' which granted them use of that easement , who do you call ?
Do you call the police ?
Do you go to court ?
Are these entities reasonably equipped to arbitrate this situation ?
Efficiently ? What about broadcast frequencies ?
I ( as a free-market advocate ) consider it my right to emit photons at an arbitrary rate and frequency ( so long as I am not killing someone ) .
If the government limits that right - in the name of the public good - what are my assurences that private interests do not exclude the public good activity which granted them special rights ?
Afterall , the slice and dice of the EM spectrum is potentially as arbitrary as the IP " rights " .My point , and I do have one - other than the bitches are crazy - is that there may be a type of state activity which is neither a police matter nor an OSHA-like matter saying you have to hang posters in your mom'n'pop shop .
In other words , some activities have a scope and structure which we have elected not to relegate to the police in any fashion .
Maybe we could .
Nonetheless , I suspect in Perfectly-Free World , the people I call because that crazy bitch just tried to stab me wo n't be the people I call because my packets are getting dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner.
Something to consider is the ingress/egress rights on a plat of survey.
No reasonable person would buy a land without a way to access it (via boat, plane, road, etc.).
So we have easements to move our person and things in and out of our property.
Also, easements exist for utility companies to provide specific services.
An easement can exist for purely private purposes.
Our land has a pipeline that serves fuel oil (airliner or something) for which we have no use.
In certain areas like marriage or home purchasing, contracts are standardized to the point that most of average intelligence can understand them (even if they fail to question the assumption of rising income and home prices or do not yet know that the bitches are crazy).So what am I getting at?
The bitches are crazy.
Nevermind that!
Without digging into the myriad of agreements that govern a private property's packet provider (ISP), if the provider does something that violates the letter or 'spirit' which granted them use of that easement, who do you call?
Do you call the police?
Do you go to court?
Are these entities reasonably equipped to arbitrate this situation?
Efficiently?  What about broadcast frequencies?
I (as a free-market advocate) consider it my right to emit photons at an arbitrary rate and frequency (so long as I am not killing someone).
If the government limits that right - in the name of the public good - what are my assurences that private interests do not exclude the public good activity which granted them special rights?
Afterall, the slice and dice of the EM spectrum is potentially as arbitrary as the IP "rights".My point, and I do have one - other than the bitches are crazy - is that there may be a type of state activity which is neither a police matter nor an OSHA-like matter saying you have to hang posters in your mom'n'pop shop.
In other words, some activities have a scope and structure which we have elected not to relegate to the police in any fashion.
Maybe we could.
Nonetheless, I suspect in Perfectly-Free World, the people I call because that crazy bitch just tried to stab me won't be the people I call because my packets are getting dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310590</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1259857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&lt;OT&gt;
I disagree with the premise that people's natural state is "robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting". Or at any rate, I'm not convinced. Citing the actions of people during natural disasters and blackouts is insufficient evidence, since these are extraordinary circumstances where fear may well have as much to do with their actions as simple opportunism. A more proper test would be to remove law enforcement directly, leaving everything else unchanged.
&lt;/OT&gt;
</p><p>
The marketplace is a whole other story. Even if individual people's nature is not so heartless, we've certainly seen countless good examples through out history where mob mentality, social cohesion, peer pressure, etc., have brought about atrocious behavior. Add money and power to the mix, and you're just begging for a gosh dang ass raping.
</p><p>
In conclusion and in summary, industry regulation is pretty important in contemporary American society. For the time being at least, the Internet can be considered an industry.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the premise that people 's natural state is " robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting " .
Or at any rate , I 'm not convinced .
Citing the actions of people during natural disasters and blackouts is insufficient evidence , since these are extraordinary circumstances where fear may well have as much to do with their actions as simple opportunism .
A more proper test would be to remove law enforcement directly , leaving everything else unchanged .
The marketplace is a whole other story .
Even if individual people 's nature is not so heartless , we 've certainly seen countless good examples through out history where mob mentality , social cohesion , peer pressure , etc. , have brought about atrocious behavior .
Add money and power to the mix , and you 're just begging for a gosh dang ass raping .
In conclusion and in summary , industry regulation is pretty important in contemporary American society .
For the time being at least , the Internet can be considered an industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I disagree with the premise that people's natural state is "robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting".
Or at any rate, I'm not convinced.
Citing the actions of people during natural disasters and blackouts is insufficient evidence, since these are extraordinary circumstances where fear may well have as much to do with their actions as simple opportunism.
A more proper test would be to remove law enforcement directly, leaving everything else unchanged.
The marketplace is a whole other story.
Even if individual people's nature is not so heartless, we've certainly seen countless good examples through out history where mob mentality, social cohesion, peer pressure, etc., have brought about atrocious behavior.
Add money and power to the mix, and you're just begging for a gosh dang ass raping.
In conclusion and in summary, industry regulation is pretty important in contemporary American society.
For the time being at least, the Internet can be considered an industry.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310344</id>
	<title>Re:So many differences, it doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Victorian-Internet-Remarkable-Nineteenth-line/dp/0802716040/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1259852981&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">book</a> [amazon.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the book [ amazon.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the book [amazon.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315680</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders. </p></div><p>No, corporations are ultimately answerable to the <b>government</b> that created them.  What do you think a corporation is?  It's a legal entity defined by its articles of incorporation; legal as in subject to law.  If a local government doesn't like what they are doing in their community, there are multiple ways to get them out including jacking up taxes on them (they often lower tax rates to entice companies to move in.)  Problem is, that then they wouldn't have the jobs that the company brought.</p><p>I'm no fan of corporations, but to pretend that the federal and local governments are not complicit in the fucked up things corporations do is naive.  If it wasn't for the initial laws and regulations that formed corporations, then it would just be a dude with lots of money paying people to do shit until he died, when his estate would be broken up among his heirs or carved up by his rivals.  Corporations are nothing more than Immortal Frankenstein Monsters, un-dieing, made up of hundreds of stiffs, and brought to life by the government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens , whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders .
No , corporations are ultimately answerable to the government that created them .
What do you think a corporation is ?
It 's a legal entity defined by its articles of incorporation ; legal as in subject to law .
If a local government does n't like what they are doing in their community , there are multiple ways to get them out including jacking up taxes on them ( they often lower tax rates to entice companies to move in .
) Problem is , that then they would n't have the jobs that the company brought.I 'm no fan of corporations , but to pretend that the federal and local governments are not complicit in the fucked up things corporations do is naive .
If it was n't for the initial laws and regulations that formed corporations , then it would just be a dude with lots of money paying people to do shit until he died , when his estate would be broken up among his heirs or carved up by his rivals .
Corporations are nothing more than Immortal Frankenstein Monsters , un-dieing , made up of hundreds of stiffs , and brought to life by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders.
No, corporations are ultimately answerable to the government that created them.
What do you think a corporation is?
It's a legal entity defined by its articles of incorporation; legal as in subject to law.
If a local government doesn't like what they are doing in their community, there are multiple ways to get them out including jacking up taxes on them (they often lower tax rates to entice companies to move in.
)  Problem is, that then they wouldn't have the jobs that the company brought.I'm no fan of corporations, but to pretend that the federal and local governments are not complicit in the fucked up things corporations do is naive.
If it wasn't for the initial laws and regulations that formed corporations, then it would just be a dude with lots of money paying people to do shit until he died, when his estate would be broken up among his heirs or carved up by his rivals.
Corporations are nothing more than Immortal Frankenstein Monsters, un-dieing, made up of hundreds of stiffs, and brought to life by the government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309090</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1259844900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we've learned so much in the last hundred years. We won't let them do that again. Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've learned so much in the last hundred years .
We wo n't let them do that again .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've learned so much in the last hundred years.
We won't let them do that again.
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308692</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the one talking about the evils of the telegraph is named Danglars.</p><p>Damn you Edmond Dante! You won't use the internet to trick me into losing my entire fortune <b> <i>THIS</i> </b> time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the one talking about the evils of the telegraph is named Danglars.Damn you Edmond Dante !
You wo n't use the internet to trick me into losing my entire fortune THIS time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the one talking about the evils of the telegraph is named Danglars.Damn you Edmond Dante!
You won't use the internet to trick me into losing my entire fortune  THIS  time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311014</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259859360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regulation keeps the local restaraunt from selling me poisoned food. OSHA regulations do, in fact, protect workers from violence -- my grandfather died because Purina was too cheap to put doors on its elevators (1959, long before OSHA).</p><p>Before the Clean Air Act, you could NOT drive through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauget,\_Illinois" title="wikipedia.org">Sauget</a> [wikipedia.org] with your windows down, even on a blistering hot summer day (they didn't put AC in cars back then). I would consider Monsanto's noxious fumes a direct assault on my person, and regulation stops that assault. Only government regulation keeps Monsanto from violating my right to travel through Sauget while breathing.</p><p>Yes, use as much force as you want to keep Monsanto from ruining my lungs, or a drug company form selling me drugs that contain impurities, or from <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28864316/" title="msn.com">selling poison peanut butter.</a> [msn.com]</p><p>On the other hand, law enforcement tries to stop me from gambling, soliciting a prostitute, or smoking a joint. None of these activities harm anyone without their consent. You might want to rethink your position; you've been brainwashed by the corporatti who would love nothing more than to remove the regulations that keep them from assaulting you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regulation keeps the local restaraunt from selling me poisoned food .
OSHA regulations do , in fact , protect workers from violence -- my grandfather died because Purina was too cheap to put doors on its elevators ( 1959 , long before OSHA ) .Before the Clean Air Act , you could NOT drive through Sauget [ wikipedia.org ] with your windows down , even on a blistering hot summer day ( they did n't put AC in cars back then ) .
I would consider Monsanto 's noxious fumes a direct assault on my person , and regulation stops that assault .
Only government regulation keeps Monsanto from violating my right to travel through Sauget while breathing.Yes , use as much force as you want to keep Monsanto from ruining my lungs , or a drug company form selling me drugs that contain impurities , or from selling poison peanut butter .
[ msn.com ] On the other hand , law enforcement tries to stop me from gambling , soliciting a prostitute , or smoking a joint .
None of these activities harm anyone without their consent .
You might want to rethink your position ; you 've been brainwashed by the corporatti who would love nothing more than to remove the regulations that keep them from assaulting you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regulation keeps the local restaraunt from selling me poisoned food.
OSHA regulations do, in fact, protect workers from violence -- my grandfather died because Purina was too cheap to put doors on its elevators (1959, long before OSHA).Before the Clean Air Act, you could NOT drive through Sauget [wikipedia.org] with your windows down, even on a blistering hot summer day (they didn't put AC in cars back then).
I would consider Monsanto's noxious fumes a direct assault on my person, and regulation stops that assault.
Only government regulation keeps Monsanto from violating my right to travel through Sauget while breathing.Yes, use as much force as you want to keep Monsanto from ruining my lungs, or a drug company form selling me drugs that contain impurities, or from selling poison peanut butter.
[msn.com]On the other hand, law enforcement tries to stop me from gambling, soliciting a prostitute, or smoking a joint.
None of these activities harm anyone without their consent.
You might want to rethink your position; you've been brainwashed by the corporatti who would love nothing more than to remove the regulations that keep them from assaulting you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308280</id>
	<title>foisties!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259873880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yayayayayayayayayyaya, foisties poisties!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yayayayayayayayayyaya , foisties poisties !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yayayayayayayayayyaya, foisties poisties!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640</id>
	<title>No common sense</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259836920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants."</p><p>No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water.  The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.</p><p>"That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration."</p><p>I work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work.  I have only one choice of ISP.  My ISP has GREAT power over me.  They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer.</p><p>"Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago."</p><p>Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation?  How does that follow?  That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants .
" No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water .
The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes , they can not pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble .
" That you 're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration .
" I work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work .
I have only one choice of ISP .
My ISP has GREAT power over me .
They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer .
" Somehow , people made do without the internet mere decades ago .
" Somehow , that means that it does not require regulation ?
How does that follow ?
That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants.
"No they are a regulated utility like the gas or the water.
The gas company is required to pump gas through its pipes, they cannot pump salad oil or dishwater without getting into trouble.
"That you're actually arguing that an ISP has power over individuals is hysterical exaggeration.
"I work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work.
I have only one choice of ISP.
My ISP has GREAT power over me.
They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer.
"Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.
"Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation?
How does that follow?
That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312756</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1259864760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner. Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want</p></div><p>Ideology makes for some fun thought experiments, but rarely survives in the real world.</p><p>What makes you think that people "are not reasonably predicted to" violate anyone's rights? Crack open a history book and look at the endless horrifying shit that went on before the Government started setting up regulations. There was no food safety, no banking security, no worker safety, you could pour toxins directly into the public water ways, monopolies were rampant, child labor was fun and games till you lost an arm and were fucked for life, etc etc etc.</p><p>The "free" market did not self correct for <i>any</i> of these things.<br>It took direct and sustained public outrage to tear us away from the horrors of a truly free marketplace.</p><p>For truly free markets, try Somalia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my view , regulation is not law enforcement , it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not ( and are not reasonably predicted to ) violated anyone 's rights , with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner .
Now this does n't seem so bad , when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea , however the principle is appalling to me : using force to get what you wantIdeology makes for some fun thought experiments , but rarely survives in the real world.What makes you think that people " are not reasonably predicted to " violate anyone 's rights ?
Crack open a history book and look at the endless horrifying shit that went on before the Government started setting up regulations .
There was no food safety , no banking security , no worker safety , you could pour toxins directly into the public water ways , monopolies were rampant , child labor was fun and games till you lost an arm and were fucked for life , etc etc etc.The " free " market did not self correct for any of these things.It took direct and sustained public outrage to tear us away from the horrors of a truly free marketplace.For truly free markets , try Somalia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner.
Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you wantIdeology makes for some fun thought experiments, but rarely survives in the real world.What makes you think that people "are not reasonably predicted to" violate anyone's rights?
Crack open a history book and look at the endless horrifying shit that went on before the Government started setting up regulations.
There was no food safety, no banking security, no worker safety, you could pour toxins directly into the public water ways, monopolies were rampant, child labor was fun and games till you lost an arm and were fucked for life, etc etc etc.The "free" market did not self correct for any of these things.It took direct and sustained public outrage to tear us away from the horrors of a truly free marketplace.For truly free markets, try Somalia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310246</id>
	<title>Re:No common sense</title>
	<author>kz45</author>
	<datestamp>1259856120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work. I have only one choice of ISP. My ISP has GREAT power over me. They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer."</p><p>You say this about anything.  If my employer fires me, I will be forced to move out of my apartment if I can't find another job.  Should the government force my employer to keep me employed?</p><p>You choose to give your ISP power over you, so you shouldn't be complaining.  There are many alternatives.   Satellite Internet, cell phone Internet (Most major providers have fast and affordable internet), DSL, and dialup.  You could also take your laptop to many coffee shops and get free Internet.</p><p>"Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation? How does that follow? That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology."</p><p>You are naive to think that our privacy won't be violated when the FCC is involved in our Internet.  This will be the first step for our government to start censoring the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work .
I have only one choice of ISP .
My ISP has GREAT power over me .
They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer .
" You say this about anything .
If my employer fires me , I will be forced to move out of my apartment if I ca n't find another job .
Should the government force my employer to keep me employed ? You choose to give your ISP power over you , so you should n't be complaining .
There are many alternatives .
Satellite Internet , cell phone Internet ( Most major providers have fast and affordable internet ) , DSL , and dialup .
You could also take your laptop to many coffee shops and get free Internet .
" Somehow , that means that it does not require regulation ?
How does that follow ?
That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology .
" You are naive to think that our privacy wo n't be violated when the FCC is involved in our Internet .
This will be the first step for our government to start censoring the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"work from home and I need the Internet to connect to work.
I have only one choice of ISP.
My ISP has GREAT power over me.
They can force me to MOVE OUT OF MY HOME or GET ANOTHER JOB if they decide that they do not want me as a customer.
"You say this about anything.
If my employer fires me, I will be forced to move out of my apartment if I can't find another job.
Should the government force my employer to keep me employed?You choose to give your ISP power over you, so you shouldn't be complaining.
There are many alternatives.
Satellite Internet, cell phone Internet (Most major providers have fast and affordable internet), DSL, and dialup.
You could also take your laptop to many coffee shops and get free Internet.
"Somehow, that means that it does not require regulation?
How does that follow?
That argument can be used against the regulation of ANY technology.
"You are naive to think that our privacy won't be violated when the FCC is involved in our Internet.
This will be the first step for our government to start censoring the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309802</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The bottom line is that you are being screwed. It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government. Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important. ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent. Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I have a better idea; how about, since I have freedom of association, I get to hire and fire who I choose, and get to set the Acceptable Use Policy for my ISP.
</p><p>
If you don't like that, and seek to have the government interfere with my freedom of association, perhaps you need to be shot to death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that you are being screwed .
It 's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government .
Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important .
ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content , or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent .
Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts .
I have a better idea ; how about , since I have freedom of association , I get to hire and fire who I choose , and get to set the Acceptable Use Policy for my ISP .
If you do n't like that , and seek to have the government interfere with my freedom of association , perhaps you need to be shot to death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that you are being screwed.
It's a mistake to interpret constitution as only giving us protection against federal government.
Any entity with significant power over individuals must be prevented from restricting freedom of speech or any other basic rights that we consider important.
ISPs must not be allowed to discriminate against any legal but unpopular content, or against use of particular protocols like BitTorrent.
Companies must not be allowed to fire people based on private Facebook posts.
I have a better idea; how about, since I have freedom of association, I get to hire and fire who I choose, and get to set the Acceptable Use Policy for my ISP.
If you don't like that, and seek to have the government interfere with my freedom of association, perhaps you need to be shot to death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310236</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259856120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.</i></p><p>I can remember my grandparents no having indoor plumbing, either. What's your point? One can no more do without the internet these days than indoor plumbing (even though my 78 year od dad doesn't have the internet for the same reason his father in law didn't have indoor plumbing; "I've done without it this long, I don't need it now").</p><p>There is only one water company in my town. If I didn't like it, you would have me build a cistern?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , people made do without the internet mere decades ago.I can remember my grandparents no having indoor plumbing , either .
What 's your point ?
One can no more do without the internet these days than indoor plumbing ( even though my 78 year od dad does n't have the internet for the same reason his father in law did n't have indoor plumbing ; " I 've done without it this long , I do n't need it now " ) .There is only one water company in my town .
If I did n't like it , you would have me build a cistern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, people made do without the internet mere decades ago.I can remember my grandparents no having indoor plumbing, either.
What's your point?
One can no more do without the internet these days than indoor plumbing (even though my 78 year od dad doesn't have the internet for the same reason his father in law didn't have indoor plumbing; "I've done without it this long, I don't need it now").There is only one water company in my town.
If I didn't like it, you would have me build a cistern?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309134</id>
	<title>Telegraph trivia</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1259845740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What decade was the fax machine first patented?</p><p>The 40s.</p><p>The 1840s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What decade was the fax machine first patented ? The 40s.The 1840s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What decade was the fax machine first patented?The 40s.The 1840s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309170</id>
	<title>Re:What do you think the government is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of? Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong? It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.</p><p>More dangerous?  I'd say both are equally dangerous, given the same amount of power.  But even bad politicians can make good laws.  And so long as they make good laws, we have nothing to worry about.  If they make bad laws, we need to replace them.  Seriously, although they do lots of things wrong, they don't screw up *every* law.</p><p>&gt; And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?</p><p>"Rightful" regulation?  "Its" traffic!?  It's MY traffic they're "regulating" dammit.  If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap, I will.  I'd rather it not come to that, but they started this.  They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who weren't even their customers.  It's only you crazy libertarians (unlike the sensible ones) who get bent out of shape over this, and there aren't very many of you, given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls.  That, or you're too afraid of the government to vote.</p><p>&gt; Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please? We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.</p><p>Nobody thinks that, although I've seen a few libertarians where you could just about substitute government and free market and make the same statement.  Neither one is good and you need a balance of both.  Either one alone can and will screw you.</p><p>But you wanted to go on a crazy libertarian screed, I guess.  You might try posting those somewhere that people care.  Though I'm not sure that such a place even exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Uh , and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of ?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong ?
It 's made of people too , but they 're privileged people who are making the laws , which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.More dangerous ?
I 'd say both are equally dangerous , given the same amount of power .
But even bad politicians can make good laws .
And so long as they make good laws , we have nothing to worry about .
If they make bad laws , we need to replace them .
Seriously , although they do lots of things wrong , they do n't screw up * every * law. &gt; And are you seriously comparing an ISP 's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing , pillaging , raping , and assaulting ?
" Rightful " regulation ?
" Its " traffic ! ?
It 's MY traffic they 're " regulating " dammit .
If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap , I will .
I 'd rather it not come to that , but they started this .
They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who were n't even their customers .
It 's only you crazy libertarians ( unlike the sensible ones ) who get bent out of shape over this , and there are n't very many of you , given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls .
That , or you 're too afraid of the government to vote. &gt; Could some of you stop giving the government so much power , please ?
We get it , you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.Nobody thinks that , although I 've seen a few libertarians where you could just about substitute government and free market and make the same statement .
Neither one is good and you need a balance of both .
Either one alone can and will screw you.But you wanted to go on a crazy libertarian screed , I guess .
You might try posting those somewhere that people care .
Though I 'm not sure that such a place even exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Uh, and just what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?
Deities who are always neutral and never do anything wrong?
It's made of people too, but they're privileged people who are making the laws, which makes them even more dangerous than the free market you so baselessly despise.More dangerous?
I'd say both are equally dangerous, given the same amount of power.
But even bad politicians can make good laws.
And so long as they make good laws, we have nothing to worry about.
If they make bad laws, we need to replace them.
Seriously, although they do lots of things wrong, they don't screw up *every* law.&gt; And are you seriously comparing an ISP's rightful regulation of its internet traffic to robbing, pillaging, raping, and assaulting?
"Rightful" regulation?
"Its" traffic!?
It's MY traffic they're "regulating" dammit.
If I need to vote for a law to make businesses stop pulling that crap, I will.
I'd rather it not come to that, but they started this.
They were going to start double-dipping and charging people who weren't even their customers.
It's only you crazy libertarians (unlike the sensible ones) who get bent out of shape over this, and there aren't very many of you, given how terribly Ron Paul did in the polls.
That, or you're too afraid of the government to vote.&gt; Could some of you stop giving the government so much power, please?
We get it, you hate free markets and think government power solves absolutely everything by magic.Nobody thinks that, although I've seen a few libertarians where you could just about substitute government and free market and make the same statement.
Neither one is good and you need a balance of both.
Either one alone can and will screw you.But you wanted to go on a crazy libertarian screed, I guess.
You might try posting those somewhere that people care.
Though I'm not sure that such a place even exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308630</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>HybridJeff</author>
	<datestamp>1259836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That has nothing to do with net neutrality. All ISPs need to do is implement bandwidth caps like cell phone data plans already do and charge extra for exceeding the caps. The only reason they don't do this is because those bandwidth "hogs" are costing them less than they would lose by no longer being able to advertise their cheapest plans as unlimited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That has nothing to do with net neutrality .
All ISPs need to do is implement bandwidth caps like cell phone data plans already do and charge extra for exceeding the caps .
The only reason they do n't do this is because those bandwidth " hogs " are costing them less than they would lose by no longer being able to advertise their cheapest plans as unlimited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
All ISPs need to do is implement bandwidth caps like cell phone data plans already do and charge extra for exceeding the caps.
The only reason they don't do this is because those bandwidth "hogs" are costing them less than they would lose by no longer being able to advertise their cheapest plans as unlimited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766</id>
	<title>Re:The "free market" is "people"!</title>
	<author>fryjs</author>
	<datestamp>1259839080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things. Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force.  I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).
<br> <br>
In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner.  Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want.  This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ( as a free-market advocate ) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things .
Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another ( theft , violence , etc ) by initiated the use of force .
I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society ( protection from looters and thugs ) , but regulation the antithesis of a free society ( initiating the use of force to control people ) .
In my view , regulation is not law enforcement , it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not ( and are not reasonably predicted to ) violated anyone 's rights , with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner .
Now this does n't seem so bad , when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea , however the principle is appalling to me : using force to get what you want .
This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced ( if not controlled ) by a few powerful people and organisations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things.
Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force.
I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).
In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner.
Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want.
This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312584</id>
	<title>Where is an actual problem?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1259864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has yet shown me an ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEM that would be solved by Net Neutrality, I only hear about these theoretical, potential problems.</p><p>Please reply with an actual, existing problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has yet shown me an ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEM that would be solved by Net Neutrality , I only hear about these theoretical , potential problems.Please reply with an actual , existing problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has yet shown me an ACTUAL EXISTING PROBLEM that would be solved by Net Neutrality, I only hear about these theoretical, potential problems.Please reply with an actual, existing problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309314</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same constitution guarantees property right. ISP routers are private property. Hands off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same constitution guarantees property right .
ISP routers are private property .
Hands off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same constitution guarantees property right.
ISP routers are private property.
Hands off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308468</id>
	<title>Actually,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am waiting for the proof to come up when it is shown that tapping is going on at qwest, ATT, Verizon, etc BY the companies, and not for the feds. It will show a clear pattern of the company execs using some interesting scanning equipment to obtain information for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am waiting for the proof to come up when it is shown that tapping is going on at qwest , ATT , Verizon , etc BY the companies , and not for the feds .
It will show a clear pattern of the company execs using some interesting scanning equipment to obtain information for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am waiting for the proof to come up when it is shown that tapping is going on at qwest, ATT, Verizon, etc BY the companies, and not for the feds.
It will show a clear pattern of the company execs using some interesting scanning equipment to obtain information for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312600</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1259864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The internet isn't a right. It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants. Don't like it, don't use that ISP.</p></div><p>You're neglecting to mention that to reach you with its service, that ISP had to be granted access to scarce natural resources (land and radio spectrum) that is held in trust by the government on behalf of the public.  Since the ISP does not own the resources it uses -- it leases them -- regulation is the price of admission.</p><p>The Internet is a public-private partnership.  There can be no totally free market in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is n't a right .
It 's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants .
Do n't like it , do n't use that ISP.You 're neglecting to mention that to reach you with its service , that ISP had to be granted access to scarce natural resources ( land and radio spectrum ) that is held in trust by the government on behalf of the public .
Since the ISP does not own the resources it uses -- it leases them -- regulation is the price of admission.The Internet is a public-private partnership .
There can be no totally free market in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet isn't a right.
It's a service you pay for that an ISP can regulate however it wants.
Don't like it, don't use that ISP.You're neglecting to mention that to reach you with its service, that ISP had to be granted access to scarce natural resources (land and radio spectrum) that is held in trust by the government on behalf of the public.
Since the ISP does not own the resources it uses -- it leases them -- regulation is the price of admission.The Internet is a public-private partnership.
There can be no totally free market in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312362</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1259863440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they could just try to give everyone similar bandwidth when the network is busy. Bandwidth caps would just make everyone angry. The situation that comes to mind is good shared hosting. When only one site is active, it gets all of the resources because why not? When more than one is active, they're balanced so each one is guaranteed at least 1/number of sites of the resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could just try to give everyone similar bandwidth when the network is busy .
Bandwidth caps would just make everyone angry .
The situation that comes to mind is good shared hosting .
When only one site is active , it gets all of the resources because why not ?
When more than one is active , they 're balanced so each one is guaranteed at least 1/number of sites of the resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could just try to give everyone similar bandwidth when the network is busy.
Bandwidth caps would just make everyone angry.
The situation that comes to mind is good shared hosting.
When only one site is active, it gets all of the resources because why not?
When more than one is active, they're balanced so each one is guaranteed at least 1/number of sites of the resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314466</id>
	<title>Re:government regulation</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1259871120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Networks like telegraphs, electricity, and so on can't exist without governments.  Suppose you wanted to run cable through a neighborhood without public property.  You'd have to negotiate with each individual landowner for rights to run cable through their property.  A few stubborn people could make it impractical to serve an entire neighborhood.
</p><p>
Therefore, the only reason these exist is that the government has public property that can be devoted to limited uses, and can pass laws allowing somebody to run cable over my property without my permission.
</p><p>
At this point, we have a natural monopoly.  The government can't give everybody the right to run cables wherever they want, they can only do that for a few enterprises (like the power company, the telephone company, and the cable company).
</p><p>
So, we have people running some sort of business made possible only by government activity, with no possibility of open competition, and you think they should run it entirely as a private business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Networks like telegraphs , electricity , and so on ca n't exist without governments .
Suppose you wanted to run cable through a neighborhood without public property .
You 'd have to negotiate with each individual landowner for rights to run cable through their property .
A few stubborn people could make it impractical to serve an entire neighborhood .
Therefore , the only reason these exist is that the government has public property that can be devoted to limited uses , and can pass laws allowing somebody to run cable over my property without my permission .
At this point , we have a natural monopoly .
The government ca n't give everybody the right to run cables wherever they want , they can only do that for a few enterprises ( like the power company , the telephone company , and the cable company ) .
So , we have people running some sort of business made possible only by government activity , with no possibility of open competition , and you think they should run it entirely as a private business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Networks like telegraphs, electricity, and so on can't exist without governments.
Suppose you wanted to run cable through a neighborhood without public property.
You'd have to negotiate with each individual landowner for rights to run cable through their property.
A few stubborn people could make it impractical to serve an entire neighborhood.
Therefore, the only reason these exist is that the government has public property that can be devoted to limited uses, and can pass laws allowing somebody to run cable over my property without my permission.
At this point, we have a natural monopoly.
The government can't give everybody the right to run cables wherever they want, they can only do that for a few enterprises (like the power company, the telephone company, and the cable company).
So, we have people running some sort of business made possible only by government activity, with no possibility of open competition, and you think they should run it entirely as a private business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309220</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter who is violating your rights</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259847000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, dumbshit, why do you think you have a right to free and unfettered use of someone else's work, money, and equipment? Did you build the infrastructure? No, you didn't. Did you pay for the servers and routers? No, you didn't. And, the government didn't either.</p><p>Listen up, shithead, <b>YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET OR ANY OTHER NETWORK OR THE WORK PRODUCT OF ANYONE ELSE.</b></p><p>The Constitution says you can start your own news paper, and it says you can say things the government doesn't like. It does not guarantee you a phone, a news paper, Internet access, etc. It does not say you can use other people's things for free.</p><p>Oh, and just so you will know, originally the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, didn't provide rights <b>to</b> anything. It provided rights <b>FROM</b> things, like censorship and unreasonable search and seizure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , dumbshit , why do you think you have a right to free and unfettered use of someone else 's work , money , and equipment ?
Did you build the infrastructure ?
No , you did n't .
Did you pay for the servers and routers ?
No , you did n't .
And , the government did n't either.Listen up , shithead , YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET OR ANY OTHER NETWORK OR THE WORK PRODUCT OF ANYONE ELSE.The Constitution says you can start your own news paper , and it says you can say things the government does n't like .
It does not guarantee you a phone , a news paper , Internet access , etc .
It does not say you can use other people 's things for free.Oh , and just so you will know , originally the Constitution , including the Bill of Rights , did n't provide rights to anything .
It provided rights FROM things , like censorship and unreasonable search and seizure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, dumbshit, why do you think you have a right to free and unfettered use of someone else's work, money, and equipment?
Did you build the infrastructure?
No, you didn't.
Did you pay for the servers and routers?
No, you didn't.
And, the government didn't either.Listen up, shithead, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET OR ANY OTHER NETWORK OR THE WORK PRODUCT OF ANYONE ELSE.The Constitution says you can start your own news paper, and it says you can say things the government doesn't like.
It does not guarantee you a phone, a news paper, Internet access, etc.
It does not say you can use other people's things for free.Oh, and just so you will know, originally the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, didn't provide rights to anything.
It provided rights FROM things, like censorship and unreasonable search and seizure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311504</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1259860980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.</i>"</p><p>Excuse me?  Perhaps you mean that the ones pushing for the status quo are also the ones dealing in information.</p><p>Those who oppose network neutrality also include those of us with the common sense to know that legislators and regulators shouldn't try to set technical policy.</p><p>There are other approaches to solving the problems NN wants to address, and those other approaches have the added benefit that they might actually work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information .
" Excuse me ?
Perhaps you mean that the ones pushing for the status quo are also the ones dealing in information.Those who oppose network neutrality also include those of us with the common sense to know that legislators and regulators should n't try to set technical policy.There are other approaches to solving the problems NN wants to address , and those other approaches have the added benefit that they might actually work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the ones pushing to abandon NN are also the ones dealing in information.
"Excuse me?
Perhaps you mean that the ones pushing for the status quo are also the ones dealing in information.Those who oppose network neutrality also include those of us with the common sense to know that legislators and regulators shouldn't try to set technical policy.There are other approaches to solving the problems NN wants to address, and those other approaches have the added benefit that they might actually work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308292</id>
	<title>As Humphrey Appleby said...</title>
	<author>iamvego</author>
	<datestamp>1259830980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's the thin end of the wedge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's the thin end of the wedge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's the thin end of the wedge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308546</id>
	<title>Hi</title>
	<author>barbara789</author>
	<datestamp>1259835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the Information.this is really very great news.from past so many days I was searching for this kind of article.
Barbara
<a href="http://www.ifsdb.com/" title="ifsdb.com" rel="nofollow">financial services</a> [ifsdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the Information.this is really very great news.from past so many days I was searching for this kind of article .
Barbara financial services [ ifsdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the Information.this is really very great news.from past so many days I was searching for this kind of article.
Barbara
financial services [ifsdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311162</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>phlinn</author>
	<datestamp>1259859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, it's funny.  Currently, the only google link for the phrase "Hayessociated press" is the source article.  Are we sure the article isn't making up it's story about the telegram out of whole cloth, or at least spinning the actual events?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , it 's funny .
Currently , the only google link for the phrase " Hayessociated press " is the source article .
Are we sure the article is n't making up it 's story about the telegram out of whole cloth , or at least spinning the actual events ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, it's funny.
Currently, the only google link for the phrase "Hayessociated press" is the source article.
Are we sure the article isn't making up it's story about the telegram out of whole cloth, or at least spinning the actual events?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30313212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30325206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_044220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30313212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30315680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30325206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30310344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30309302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_044220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30308888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30314466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30312790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_044220.30311880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
