<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_1522204</id>
	<title>Data-Sifting For Timely Intelligence Still an Elusive Goal</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260288240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gyrogeerloose writes <i>"Although there was evidence to suggest that the Japanese navy was up to something in December 1941, that information was scant and came too late. Today's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether &mdash; more information than they can deal with, and computers aren't helping as much as one might expect for reasons that will be familiar to Slashdot readers: computers can crunch numbers faster and more accurately than humans, but they're <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/07/holy-grail-data-sifting-proves-elusive/">still easily baffled by language as it is commonly used</a> in the real world. Metaphor, slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best algorithm and, as quoted in the linked article in the San Diego <em>Union-Tribune</em>, 'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day isn't very useful.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gyrogeerloose writes " Although there was evidence to suggest that the Japanese navy was up to something in December 1941 , that information was scant and came too late .
Today 's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether    more information than they can deal with , and computers are n't helping as much as one might expect for reasons that will be familiar to Slashdot readers : computers can crunch numbers faster and more accurately than humans , but they 're still easily baffled by language as it is commonly used in the real world .
Metaphor , slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best algorithm and , as quoted in the linked article in the San Diego Union-Tribune , 'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day is n't very useful .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gyrogeerloose writes "Although there was evidence to suggest that the Japanese navy was up to something in December 1941, that information was scant and came too late.
Today's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether — more information than they can deal with, and computers aren't helping as much as one might expect for reasons that will be familiar to Slashdot readers: computers can crunch numbers faster and more accurately than humans, but they're still easily baffled by language as it is commonly used in the real world.
Metaphor, slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best algorithm and, as quoted in the linked article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, 'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day isn't very useful.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368566</id>
	<title>Are "Psi" Powers the Solution?</title>
	<author>strangelovian</author>
	<datestamp>1260301800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The data overload problem will only get worse in the future, which is why the next frontier in national security (and many other fields) may not be faster, smarter computers, but tapping into powers of the human mind that most modern people don&rsquo;t even know exist (and deny dogmatically).  I&rsquo;m speaking of &ldquo;psi&rdquo; powers, which the CIA and other intelligence agencies have used extensively with some pretty amazing results.  Read &ldquo;Outside the Gates of Science: Why It's Time for the Paranormal to Come in from the Cold&rdquo; by Damien Broderick for a fascinating account of this research.  Remote viewers, for example, have been able to draw detailed pictures of secret bases, Saddam Hussein&rsquo;s hideout, etc., but the techniques are erratic and don&rsquo;t seem very amenable to scientific analysis.

In general I wonder if the &ldquo;Butlerian Jihad&rdquo; of the Dune novels isn&rsquo;t so far-fetched, and mental training schools like the Mentat and the Benne-Gesserit are the way forward for a civilization drowning in its own data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The data overload problem will only get worse in the future , which is why the next frontier in national security ( and many other fields ) may not be faster , smarter computers , but tapping into powers of the human mind that most modern people don    t even know exist ( and deny dogmatically ) .
I    m speaking of    psi    powers , which the CIA and other intelligence agencies have used extensively with some pretty amazing results .
Read    Outside the Gates of Science : Why It 's Time for the Paranormal to Come in from the Cold    by Damien Broderick for a fascinating account of this research .
Remote viewers , for example , have been able to draw detailed pictures of secret bases , Saddam Hussein    s hideout , etc. , but the techniques are erratic and don    t seem very amenable to scientific analysis .
In general I wonder if the    Butlerian Jihad    of the Dune novels isn    t so far-fetched , and mental training schools like the Mentat and the Benne-Gesserit are the way forward for a civilization drowning in its own data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data overload problem will only get worse in the future, which is why the next frontier in national security (and many other fields) may not be faster, smarter computers, but tapping into powers of the human mind that most modern people don’t even know exist (and deny dogmatically).
I’m speaking of “psi” powers, which the CIA and other intelligence agencies have used extensively with some pretty amazing results.
Read “Outside the Gates of Science: Why It's Time for the Paranormal to Come in from the Cold” by Damien Broderick for a fascinating account of this research.
Remote viewers, for example, have been able to draw detailed pictures of secret bases, Saddam Hussein’s hideout, etc., but the techniques are erratic and don’t seem very amenable to scientific analysis.
In general I wonder if the “Butlerian Jihad” of the Dune novels isn’t so far-fetched, and mental training schools like the Mentat and the Benne-Gesserit are the way forward for a civilization drowning in its own data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366508</id>
	<title>Computer Analysis Feedback Loop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day isn't very useful.'"</p><p>I would argue that it can be.  If your system takes a week to discover a bomb plot that occurred last week, refinements can be made to the system to improve its detection abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day is n't very useful .
' " I would argue that it can be .
If your system takes a week to discover a bomb plot that occurred last week , refinements can be made to the system to improve its detection abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day isn't very useful.
'"I would argue that it can be.
If your system takes a week to discover a bomb plot that occurred last week, refinements can be made to the system to improve its detection abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367128</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously...</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1260295920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citizens rejoice! Lojban has been adapted as the New Official Language!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citizens rejoice !
Lojban has been adapted as the New Official Language !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citizens rejoice!
Lojban has been adapted as the New Official Language!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366582</id>
	<title>Re:For example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260293280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CmdrTaco has a small dick. If you agree mod me down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco has a small dick .
If you agree mod me down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco has a small dick.
If you agree mod me down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367104</id>
	<title>Re:America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1260295800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It was strategically the right move.</p></div><p>I think the outcome of World War II demonstrates that it was <i>not</i> the right move strategically. Tactically, perhaps, if the Japanese military planners were expecting the U.S. to enter into war, but it was a strategic disaster for them over the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was strategically the right move.I think the outcome of World War II demonstrates that it was not the right move strategically .
Tactically , perhaps , if the Japanese military planners were expecting the U.S. to enter into war , but it was a strategic disaster for them over the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It was strategically the right move.I think the outcome of World War II demonstrates that it was not the right move strategically.
Tactically, perhaps, if the Japanese military planners were expecting the U.S. to enter into war, but it was a strategic disaster for them over the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368452</id>
	<title>A week? A day? Whatever.</title>
	<author>ljwest</author>
	<datestamp>1260301440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A system taking a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day's time will (by Moore's law) break even in 33.9 month's time. I.e., in 33.9 month's time, it won't take week - it'll take a day. So keep developing - it'll be viable in three years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A system taking a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day 's time will ( by Moore 's law ) break even in 33.9 month 's time .
I.e. , in 33.9 month 's time , it wo n't take week - it 'll take a day .
So keep developing - it 'll be viable in three years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A system taking a week to discover a bombing that will occur in a day's time will (by Moore's law) break even in 33.9 month's time.
I.e., in 33.9 month's time, it won't take week - it'll take a day.
So keep developing - it'll be viable in three years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367108</id>
	<title>Perhaps ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1260295860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... if Bush would not have gone looking for porn, or Obama for offshore bank accounts, the remaining data could be analyzed in a timely manner for those bombs they all claim to be interested in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if Bush would not have gone looking for porn , or Obama for offshore bank accounts , the remaining data could be analyzed in a timely manner for those bombs they all claim to be interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if Bush would not have gone looking for porn, or Obama for offshore bank accounts, the remaining data could be analyzed in a timely manner for those bombs they all claim to be interested in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371364</id>
	<title>Re:ECHELON</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1260271680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I don't have the concept wrong, this is likely just the result of information coming from ECHELON. The later is a military project set up to monitor communications around the world, for the purpose of developing SIGINT.<br>Since it is usually illegal for the Government of a western democracy to spy on its citizens, the US, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia have reportedly arranged to spy on each others citizens and then report the results to the nation of that Citizen.<br>If this is true, then its entirely possible that your queries generated a report on Echelon and this was passed on to someone who decided to at least check out your IP and see what was reported back. It may even have been entirely automated and the results merely collated to see if anything could be developed from it. Entirely speculation on my part, and the whole concept of Echelon is subject to some doubt - although since I can imagine the possibility of it being built, and since having it built would be a significant SIGINT advantage, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in existence. Theres a good likelihood it isn't called Echelon of course, I suspect thats more likely to be the name of one part of the whole thing - and I bet it doesn't run as smoothly as we would imagine it does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon\_(signals\_intelligence)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon\_(signals\_intelligence)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I find it fascinating. I also don't doubt the rumours mentioned in the Wikipedia article that imply it has been used to offer advantages to US companies. The US Gov't has a bit of a history of using military means to support US Corporations in the past, this would seem a natural extension of that.<br>Since this article here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is concerned with the difficulty of filtering out relevant and important information, I would bet a lot of the data that has to be so filtered comes from ECHELON, and that the major problem it faces on a daily basis is the huge amount of data that has to be filtered to be of any use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I do n't have the concept wrong , this is likely just the result of information coming from ECHELON .
The later is a military project set up to monitor communications around the world , for the purpose of developing SIGINT.Since it is usually illegal for the Government of a western democracy to spy on its citizens , the US , Canada , Great Britain , New Zealand and Australia have reportedly arranged to spy on each others citizens and then report the results to the nation of that Citizen.If this is true , then its entirely possible that your queries generated a report on Echelon and this was passed on to someone who decided to at least check out your IP and see what was reported back .
It may even have been entirely automated and the results merely collated to see if anything could be developed from it .
Entirely speculation on my part , and the whole concept of Echelon is subject to some doubt - although since I can imagine the possibility of it being built , and since having it built would be a significant SIGINT advantage , I ca n't imagine why it would n't be in existence .
Theres a good likelihood it is n't called Echelon of course , I suspect thats more likely to be the name of one part of the whole thing - and I bet it does n't run as smoothly as we would imagine it does : Phttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon \ _ ( signals \ _intelligence ) [ wikipedia.org ] I find it fascinating .
I also do n't doubt the rumours mentioned in the Wikipedia article that imply it has been used to offer advantages to US companies .
The US Gov't has a bit of a history of using military means to support US Corporations in the past , this would seem a natural extension of that.Since this article here on / .
is concerned with the difficulty of filtering out relevant and important information , I would bet a lot of the data that has to be so filtered comes from ECHELON , and that the major problem it faces on a daily basis is the huge amount of data that has to be filtered to be of any use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I don't have the concept wrong, this is likely just the result of information coming from ECHELON.
The later is a military project set up to monitor communications around the world, for the purpose of developing SIGINT.Since it is usually illegal for the Government of a western democracy to spy on its citizens, the US, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia have reportedly arranged to spy on each others citizens and then report the results to the nation of that Citizen.If this is true, then its entirely possible that your queries generated a report on Echelon and this was passed on to someone who decided to at least check out your IP and see what was reported back.
It may even have been entirely automated and the results merely collated to see if anything could be developed from it.
Entirely speculation on my part, and the whole concept of Echelon is subject to some doubt - although since I can imagine the possibility of it being built, and since having it built would be a significant SIGINT advantage, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in existence.
Theres a good likelihood it isn't called Echelon of course, I suspect thats more likely to be the name of one part of the whole thing - and I bet it doesn't run as smoothly as we would imagine it does :Phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon\_(signals\_intelligence) [wikipedia.org]I find it fascinating.
I also don't doubt the rumours mentioned in the Wikipedia article that imply it has been used to offer advantages to US companies.
The US Gov't has a bit of a history of using military means to support US Corporations in the past, this would seem a natural extension of that.Since this article here on /.
is concerned with the difficulty of filtering out relevant and important information, I would bet a lot of the data that has to be so filtered comes from ECHELON, and that the major problem it faces on a daily basis is the huge amount of data that has to be filtered to be of any use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367312</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I've been answering the phone with "Assassinate the vice-president" the last five years. I figure when I finally do commit some hideous act of terror upon the American people, they'll have been ignoring me as a potential threat because of obfuscation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I 've been answering the phone with " Assassinate the vice-president " the last five years .
I figure when I finally do commit some hideous act of terror upon the American people , they 'll have been ignoring me as a potential threat because of obfuscation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I've been answering the phone with "Assassinate the vice-president" the last five years.
I figure when I finally do commit some hideous act of terror upon the American people, they'll have been ignoring me as a potential threat because of obfuscation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367048</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260295560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human SIGINT is flawed because they can easily be manipulated, compartmentalized and shut down when neccessary. You can also be relying on people who are flawed morally, intellectually, etc...</p><p><a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg" title="wanttoknow.info">An Example</a> [wanttoknow.info]</p><p>15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [<a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/021022post\_9-11\_hijackers\_visas" title="wanttoknow.info">Washington Post, 10/22/02,</a> [wanttoknow.info] <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051" title="go.com">ABC, 10/23/02</a> [go.com]] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened.[ <a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/021218ap" title="wanttoknow.info"> </a> [wanttoknow.info]AP, 12/18/02<a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg#visas" title="wanttoknow.info">More</a> [wanttoknow.info]]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At least 13 of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were never interviewed by U.S. consular officials before being granted visas to enter the United States, according to a congressional report issued yesterday. The finding contradicts previous assurances from the State Department that most of them had been thoroughly screened.</p><p>The General Accounting Office also found that, for 15 hijackers whose applications could be found, none had filled in the documents properly.</p></div><p>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The GAO report found that all 15 of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia applied for visas in Jeddah or Riyadh; two others applied in their native United Arab Emirates. The remaining two, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, an Egyptian citizen, applied as "third-country" applicants in Berlin.</p><p>None of 18 separate visa applications by 15 of the hijackers was completed properly, the report said. Thirteen of the 15, who were from Saudi Arabia or UAE, were never interviewed before being approved for a visa, the report found. Investigators were unable to review the applications for four other hijackers, including Atta, because they were destroyed.</p> </div><p>If you want to see the actual Visas of some 9/11 hijackers you can go <a href="http://911review.org/Wiki/CiaVisasForPatsies.shtml" title="911review.org">here.</a> [911review.org]</p><p>If you want to know why people with such obviously fraudulent Visa applications can get in to the country consider the testimony of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=J.+Michael+Springmann" title="google.com">J. Michael Springmann.</a> [google.com] He worked at the Jeddah consulate approving Visas and says he was occasionally overruled by the CIA. Remember that when Springmann was working there they weren't known as terrorists, they were still called freedom fighters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human SIGINT is flawed because they can easily be manipulated , compartmentalized and shut down when neccessary .
You can also be relying on people who are flawed morally , intellectually , etc...An Example [ wanttoknow.info ] 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia .
Only six are interviewed .
All 15 should have been denied entry to the US .
[ Washington Post , 10/22/02 , [ wanttoknow.info ] ABC , 10/23/02 [ go.com ] ] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law , 9/11 would not have happened .
[ [ wanttoknow.info ] AP , 12/18/02More [ wanttoknow.info ] ] At least 13 of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , hijackers were never interviewed by U.S. consular officials before being granted visas to enter the United States , according to a congressional report issued yesterday .
The finding contradicts previous assurances from the State Department that most of them had been thoroughly screened.The General Accounting Office also found that , for 15 hijackers whose applications could be found , none had filled in the documents properly....The GAO report found that all 15 of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia applied for visas in Jeddah or Riyadh ; two others applied in their native United Arab Emirates .
The remaining two , including ringleader Mohamed Atta , an Egyptian citizen , applied as " third-country " applicants in Berlin.None of 18 separate visa applications by 15 of the hijackers was completed properly , the report said .
Thirteen of the 15 , who were from Saudi Arabia or UAE , were never interviewed before being approved for a visa , the report found .
Investigators were unable to review the applications for four other hijackers , including Atta , because they were destroyed .
If you want to see the actual Visas of some 9/11 hijackers you can go here .
[ 911review.org ] If you want to know why people with such obviously fraudulent Visa applications can get in to the country consider the testimony of J. Michael Springmann .
[ google.com ] He worked at the Jeddah consulate approving Visas and says he was occasionally overruled by the CIA .
Remember that when Springmann was working there they were n't known as terrorists , they were still called freedom fighters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human SIGINT is flawed because they can easily be manipulated, compartmentalized and shut down when neccessary.
You can also be relying on people who are flawed morally, intellectually, etc...An Example [wanttoknow.info]15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia.
Only six are interviewed.
All 15 should have been denied entry to the US.
[Washington Post, 10/22/02, [wanttoknow.info] ABC, 10/23/02 [go.com]] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened.
[   [wanttoknow.info]AP, 12/18/02More [wanttoknow.info]]At least 13 of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were never interviewed by U.S. consular officials before being granted visas to enter the United States, according to a congressional report issued yesterday.
The finding contradicts previous assurances from the State Department that most of them had been thoroughly screened.The General Accounting Office also found that, for 15 hijackers whose applications could be found, none had filled in the documents properly....The GAO report found that all 15 of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia applied for visas in Jeddah or Riyadh; two others applied in their native United Arab Emirates.
The remaining two, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, an Egyptian citizen, applied as "third-country" applicants in Berlin.None of 18 separate visa applications by 15 of the hijackers was completed properly, the report said.
Thirteen of the 15, who were from Saudi Arabia or UAE, were never interviewed before being approved for a visa, the report found.
Investigators were unable to review the applications for four other hijackers, including Atta, because they were destroyed.
If you want to see the actual Visas of some 9/11 hijackers you can go here.
[911review.org]If you want to know why people with such obviously fraudulent Visa applications can get in to the country consider the testimony of J. Michael Springmann.
[google.com] He worked at the Jeddah consulate approving Visas and says he was occasionally overruled by the CIA.
Remember that when Springmann was working there they weren't known as terrorists, they were still called freedom fighters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384</id>
	<title>Obviously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why we need to legally mandate that all human communication occur in newspeak. Ambiguity is the enemy of security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need to legally mandate that all human communication occur in newspeak .
Ambiguity is the enemy of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need to legally mandate that all human communication occur in newspeak.
Ambiguity is the enemy of security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367258</id>
	<title>Hate to Godwin here, but this is old problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. In addition, this is not a new problem.</p><p>If you visit STASI museum* in Berlin, one thing you'll no doubt learn is this: STASI was a lot more inefficient than they could have been because they had much more data than they could process. They didn't have problem with gathering information but with acting based on it. They received so many reports and pieces of information that there was no chance for them to tie them all together and analyze them all.</p><p>That's why I don't think that the biggest risks we face are increase in amount of CCTV cams and whatnot. They can't effectively be used to trace us because nobody can analyze all that data. Solving crimes (as inefficient as they are in that) is pretty much the only thing they can be used for. However, when I hear about new advances in areas of face recognization and stuff like that I always begin wonder what kind of central intelligence agency will the next dictatorship have access to.</p><p>*Yes, I know the difference between Gestapo and STASI but if you interpret godwin's law that literally, you are missing the point. In addition, I would be surprised if Gestapo didn't have a similar problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
In addition , this is not a new problem.If you visit STASI museum * in Berlin , one thing you 'll no doubt learn is this : STASI was a lot more inefficient than they could have been because they had much more data than they could process .
They did n't have problem with gathering information but with acting based on it .
They received so many reports and pieces of information that there was no chance for them to tie them all together and analyze them all.That 's why I do n't think that the biggest risks we face are increase in amount of CCTV cams and whatnot .
They ca n't effectively be used to trace us because nobody can analyze all that data .
Solving crimes ( as inefficient as they are in that ) is pretty much the only thing they can be used for .
However , when I hear about new advances in areas of face recognization and stuff like that I always begin wonder what kind of central intelligence agency will the next dictatorship have access to .
* Yes , I know the difference between Gestapo and STASI but if you interpret godwin 's law that literally , you are missing the point .
In addition , I would be surprised if Gestapo did n't have a similar problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
In addition, this is not a new problem.If you visit STASI museum* in Berlin, one thing you'll no doubt learn is this: STASI was a lot more inefficient than they could have been because they had much more data than they could process.
They didn't have problem with gathering information but with acting based on it.
They received so many reports and pieces of information that there was no chance for them to tie them all together and analyze them all.That's why I don't think that the biggest risks we face are increase in amount of CCTV cams and whatnot.
They can't effectively be used to trace us because nobody can analyze all that data.
Solving crimes (as inefficient as they are in that) is pretty much the only thing they can be used for.
However, when I hear about new advances in areas of face recognization and stuff like that I always begin wonder what kind of central intelligence agency will the next dictatorship have access to.
*Yes, I know the difference between Gestapo and STASI but if you interpret godwin's law that literally, you are missing the point.
In addition, I would be surprised if Gestapo didn't have a similar problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367192</id>
	<title>'A system that takes a week'...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it's late, but you really know you got the right answer.<br>So, not all bad, and it will be easy to check your work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it 's late , but you really know you got the right answer.So , not all bad , and it will be easy to check your work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it's late, but you really know you got the right answer.So, not all bad, and it will be easy to check your work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367038</id>
	<title>ta3o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260295500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">recruitment, but The facts and overly morbid and nned your help!</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>recruitment , but The facts and overly morbid and nned your help !
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recruitment, but The facts and overly morbid and nned your help!
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373644</id>
	<title>Grow up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Metaphor, slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best <b>American</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Fixed that for you. What is this, whine like an asshole day ? Every story is full of US focused ignorant babble. If you want this site to become Fox news, you're doing a "good job" of meeting the demographic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Metaphor , slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best American Fixed that for you .
What is this , whine like an asshole day ?
Every story is full of US focused ignorant babble .
If you want this site to become Fox news , you 're doing a " good job " of meeting the demographic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Metaphor, slang and simple figures of speech can confuse the best American Fixed that for you.
What is this, whine like an asshole day ?
Every story is full of US focused ignorant babble.
If you want this site to become Fox news, you're doing a "good job" of meeting the demographic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369242</id>
	<title>Re:Big Brother is watching you</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1260304740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation, scanning for any information about it.</p></div></blockquote><p>And you didn't mirror a goatse gallery for them? Shame on you for a missed opportunity.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation , scanning for any information about it.And you did n't mirror a goatse gallery for them ?
Shame on you for a missed opportunity .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation, scanning for any information about it.And you didn't mirror a goatse gallery for them?
Shame on you for a missed opportunity.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367344</id>
	<title>Re:Big Brother is watching you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260297000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool story bro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool story bro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool story bro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366570</id>
	<title>Crowd source it.</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1260293220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lot of work being done to integrate search algorithms into simple gameplay. It seems to me the best way would be to have a back-end algorithm that breaks up the work into "game-able" chunks, and another that queues up the chunks into the front-end game engine.</p><p>

At least, it seems to me that if we know that binary computing sucks at solving the problem, and we know that human computing is great, that it's fundamentally wrong to be using binary computers to do the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of work being done to integrate search algorithms into simple gameplay .
It seems to me the best way would be to have a back-end algorithm that breaks up the work into " game-able " chunks , and another that queues up the chunks into the front-end game engine .
At least , it seems to me that if we know that binary computing sucks at solving the problem , and we know that human computing is great , that it 's fundamentally wrong to be using binary computers to do the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of work being done to integrate search algorithms into simple gameplay.
It seems to me the best way would be to have a back-end algorithm that breaks up the work into "game-able" chunks, and another that queues up the chunks into the front-end game engine.
At least, it seems to me that if we know that binary computing sucks at solving the problem, and we know that human computing is great, that it's fundamentally wrong to be using binary computers to do the work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284</id>
	<title>For example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone says, "I'm gonna bust a cap in the president's head", they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering.  The computer will back me up on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone says , " I 'm gon na bust a cap in the president 's head " , they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering .
The computer will back me up on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone says, "I'm gonna bust a cap in the president's head", they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering.
The computer will back me up on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022</id>
	<title>The problem is misunderstoood...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260295440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...at least as presented in the article, which frequently assumes that the text of a communication carries its meaning. The article keeps hinting at the problems, but comes back to the position that you just to make more links with more text. That's simply not true, and shows a rather understanding of the nature of language.
<p>
The meaning of a piece if a communication involves not just the text, but the specific context (who is the source, who is the recipient), the social context, and the cultural context.
</p><p>
For an example of the first - a 8 year old who says "I'm going to shoot her" (especially if the context is a game of cops and robbers) should be understood differently to an adult to says the same thing. And the meaning also varies depending on whether the adult is a photographer or not, and whether 'her' refers to a model or an ex-wife. None of these things may be made explicit anywhere in a any intercepted communication.
</p><p>
As another example, a description of a gory murder by a wild animal carries a very different meaning if the text starts with the words "Once upon a time".
</p><p>
You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness. Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...at least as presented in the article , which frequently assumes that the text of a communication carries its meaning .
The article keeps hinting at the problems , but comes back to the position that you just to make more links with more text .
That 's simply not true , and shows a rather understanding of the nature of language .
The meaning of a piece if a communication involves not just the text , but the specific context ( who is the source , who is the recipient ) , the social context , and the cultural context .
For an example of the first - a 8 year old who says " I 'm going to shoot her " ( especially if the context is a game of cops and robbers ) should be understood differently to an adult to says the same thing .
And the meaning also varies depending on whether the adult is a photographer or not , and whether 'her ' refers to a model or an ex-wife .
None of these things may be made explicit anywhere in a any intercepted communication .
As another example , a description of a gory murder by a wild animal carries a very different meaning if the text starts with the words " Once upon a time " .
You ca n't separate text , meaning and culture and consciousness .
Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard ; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...at least as presented in the article, which frequently assumes that the text of a communication carries its meaning.
The article keeps hinting at the problems, but comes back to the position that you just to make more links with more text.
That's simply not true, and shows a rather understanding of the nature of language.
The meaning of a piece if a communication involves not just the text, but the specific context (who is the source, who is the recipient), the social context, and the cultural context.
For an example of the first - a 8 year old who says "I'm going to shoot her" (especially if the context is a game of cops and robbers) should be understood differently to an adult to says the same thing.
And the meaning also varies depending on whether the adult is a photographer or not, and whether 'her' refers to a model or an ex-wife.
None of these things may be made explicit anywhere in a any intercepted communication.
As another example, a description of a gory murder by a wild animal carries a very different meaning if the text starts with the words "Once upon a time".
You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness.
Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368230</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260300660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lovely concept but what human operator generally has a full view of all the actors, events, relationships and their importance?  No one operator is going to have all the pieces of the puzzle in their head which is why they have to write up Intelligence Information Reports to share information with other operators and analysts that try to put all the pieces together.  Now you have a mountain of IIR's to either sift through by hand or you're right back to the data mining problem.</p><p>Key take away: Data Mining Issues and HUMINT aren't mutually exclusive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lovely concept but what human operator generally has a full view of all the actors , events , relationships and their importance ?
No one operator is going to have all the pieces of the puzzle in their head which is why they have to write up Intelligence Information Reports to share information with other operators and analysts that try to put all the pieces together .
Now you have a mountain of IIR 's to either sift through by hand or you 're right back to the data mining problem.Key take away : Data Mining Issues and HUMINT are n't mutually exclusive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lovely concept but what human operator generally has a full view of all the actors, events, relationships and their importance?
No one operator is going to have all the pieces of the puzzle in their head which is why they have to write up Intelligence Information Reports to share information with other operators and analysts that try to put all the pieces together.
Now you have a mountain of IIR's to either sift through by hand or you're right back to the data mining problem.Key take away: Data Mining Issues and HUMINT aren't mutually exclusive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366760</id>
	<title>A system that takes a week to discover</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1260294060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a bombing will occur in a day using exclusively prior knowledge is tremendously useful. For a start it proves that the algorithm works and might be sped up either by optimization or throwing better hardware at it<p>

If someone had a process by which the attack of 9/11 could have been forecast using only information being processed on 9/10 and it produced a report highlighting the attack would happen by 9/18 I think the CIA would be beating a path to their door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a bombing will occur in a day using exclusively prior knowledge is tremendously useful .
For a start it proves that the algorithm works and might be sped up either by optimization or throwing better hardware at it If someone had a process by which the attack of 9/11 could have been forecast using only information being processed on 9/10 and it produced a report highlighting the attack would happen by 9/18 I think the CIA would be beating a path to their door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a bombing will occur in a day using exclusively prior knowledge is tremendously useful.
For a start it proves that the algorithm works and might be sped up either by optimization or throwing better hardware at it

If someone had a process by which the attack of 9/11 could have been forecast using only information being processed on 9/10 and it produced a report highlighting the attack would happen by 9/18 I think the CIA would be beating a path to their door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367368</id>
	<title>No surprise</title>
	<author>u8i9o0</author>
	<datestamp>1260297120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Having information expire before it is discovered follows practical usage of encryption.</p><p>2. Basically, an extra layer is being applied at the content level: slang and the like are just word substitution.</p><p>3. Too much information probably indicates that attention is being diverted to cover unnecessary discussions.  Think of it this way: you're looking for someone in a city.  You could wiretap a few people close to that person and hope you catch some bit of conversation OR you wiretap the whole city guaranteeing you have every bit of conversation.  The first approach will offer information in real time while the second approach will take years to discover relevant information.  The first approach is adopted for speed, while the only reason to adopt the second is for archiving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Having information expire before it is discovered follows practical usage of encryption.2 .
Basically , an extra layer is being applied at the content level : slang and the like are just word substitution.3 .
Too much information probably indicates that attention is being diverted to cover unnecessary discussions .
Think of it this way : you 're looking for someone in a city .
You could wiretap a few people close to that person and hope you catch some bit of conversation OR you wiretap the whole city guaranteeing you have every bit of conversation .
The first approach will offer information in real time while the second approach will take years to discover relevant information .
The first approach is adopted for speed , while the only reason to adopt the second is for archiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Having information expire before it is discovered follows practical usage of encryption.2.
Basically, an extra layer is being applied at the content level: slang and the like are just word substitution.3.
Too much information probably indicates that attention is being diverted to cover unnecessary discussions.
Think of it this way: you're looking for someone in a city.
You could wiretap a few people close to that person and hope you catch some bit of conversation OR you wiretap the whole city guaranteeing you have every bit of conversation.
The first approach will offer information in real time while the second approach will take years to discover relevant information.
The first approach is adopted for speed, while the only reason to adopt the second is for archiving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366372</id>
	<title>Feed it Monty Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Squadron Leader: "Top hole. Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's your father. Hairy blighter dicky-birded, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie."</p><p>Computer: WTF?</p><p>Pilot: "Bunch of monkeys on your ceiling, sir! Grab your egg and fours and let's get the bacon delivered."</p><p>Computer: (explodes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Squadron Leader : " Top hole .
Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how 's your father .
Hairy blighter dicky-birded , feathered back on his Sammy , took a waspy , flipped over on his Betty Harper 's and caught his can in the Bertie .
" Computer : WTF ? Pilot : " Bunch of monkeys on your ceiling , sir !
Grab your egg and fours and let 's get the bacon delivered .
" Computer : ( explodes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Squadron Leader: "Top hole.
Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's your father.
Hairy blighter dicky-birded, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie.
"Computer: WTF?Pilot: "Bunch of monkeys on your ceiling, sir!
Grab your egg and fours and let's get the bacon delivered.
"Computer: (explodes)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894</id>
	<title>Re:America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1260299340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point, denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was, for all intents and purposes, and act of war.  Without those resources, Japan wouldn't have been able to hold the ground they had already taken, let alone continue advancing.  When the US cut off access to critical war resources, Japan had only two choices:  End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper, or take control of the resources by force.  For political and ideological reason, the former option wasn't much of an option at all.</p><p>Imagine if the US were fighting a major war (against a powerful, conventional enemy) and OPEC said "No more oil exports for a while".  You don't think the US govt would see that as an act of war?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point , denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was , for all intents and purposes , and act of war .
Without those resources , Japan would n't have been able to hold the ground they had already taken , let alone continue advancing .
When the US cut off access to critical war resources , Japan had only two choices : End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper , or take control of the resources by force .
For political and ideological reason , the former option was n't much of an option at all.Imagine if the US were fighting a major war ( against a powerful , conventional enemy ) and OPEC said " No more oil exports for a while " .
You do n't think the US govt would see that as an act of war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point, denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was, for all intents and purposes, and act of war.
Without those resources, Japan wouldn't have been able to hold the ground they had already taken, let alone continue advancing.
When the US cut off access to critical war resources, Japan had only two choices:  End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper, or take control of the resources by force.
For political and ideological reason, the former option wasn't much of an option at all.Imagine if the US were fighting a major war (against a powerful, conventional enemy) and OPEC said "No more oil exports for a while".
You don't think the US govt would see that as an act of war?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371268</id>
	<title>Re:America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1260271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're missing the point, denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was, for all intents and purposes, and act of war.</p></div><p>Except in one important way: letting Japan shoot the first actual bullet gave Hitler a reason to ignore the mutual defense treaty of the Axis powers, since the treaty specified that they'd only have to come to each other's aid if they were attacked first. Hitler choose not to interpret it that way, but you could have theoretically had a situation where the US mopped up Japan before committing to anything in Europe.</p><p>There's also the thought that Roosevelt wasn't naive like Wilson during the last go-round, and knew that the US going to war was inevitable. You might as well stage things beforehand to give the best possible position from the outset.</p><p>Finally, Japan at the time had an almost savage military, invading islands all over the Pacific Rim and breaking into China when it was in the middle of a civil war. Villages were burned, and women were raped. Blockading supplies was not only strategically sound, but morally praiseworthy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point , denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was , for all intents and purposes , and act of war.Except in one important way : letting Japan shoot the first actual bullet gave Hitler a reason to ignore the mutual defense treaty of the Axis powers , since the treaty specified that they 'd only have to come to each other 's aid if they were attacked first .
Hitler choose not to interpret it that way , but you could have theoretically had a situation where the US mopped up Japan before committing to anything in Europe.There 's also the thought that Roosevelt was n't naive like Wilson during the last go-round , and knew that the US going to war was inevitable .
You might as well stage things beforehand to give the best possible position from the outset.Finally , Japan at the time had an almost savage military , invading islands all over the Pacific Rim and breaking into China when it was in the middle of a civil war .
Villages were burned , and women were raped .
Blockading supplies was not only strategically sound , but morally praiseworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point, denying the Japanese access to steal and other resources during wartime was, for all intents and purposes, and act of war.Except in one important way: letting Japan shoot the first actual bullet gave Hitler a reason to ignore the mutual defense treaty of the Axis powers, since the treaty specified that they'd only have to come to each other's aid if they were attacked first.
Hitler choose not to interpret it that way, but you could have theoretically had a situation where the US mopped up Japan before committing to anything in Europe.There's also the thought that Roosevelt wasn't naive like Wilson during the last go-round, and knew that the US going to war was inevitable.
You might as well stage things beforehand to give the best possible position from the outset.Finally, Japan at the time had an almost savage military, invading islands all over the Pacific Rim and breaking into China when it was in the middle of a civil war.
Villages were burned, and women were raped.
Blockading supplies was not only strategically sound, but morally praiseworthy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368472</id>
	<title>Re:Feed it Monty Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soap and MacTavish, is that you guys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soap and MacTavish , is that you guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soap and MacTavish, is that you guys?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522</id>
	<title>The Real Issue</title>
	<author>carp3\_noct3m</author>
	<datestamp>1260292920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is not that technology can't sift through some language as easy as it wants to. The problem is that (I am speaking for US and some allies) we have moved away from HUMAN intel. All the technology in the world can be rendered useless when for example, terrorists cells start to use face to face only communication in a tree like scheme. Only a few people ever talk to the people that pull the strings, and they talk to only a few people, only by passing letters or by talking face to face. I took a counter-surveillance course where I was amazed at the relative ease it took to shake even trained professionals. (It was also very fun to learn how to make drops and such) The point being that if someone really doesn't want to get caught, especially in a foreign country, its not too difficult. Humans are vulnerable, weak, and irrational beings capable of cognitive dissonance at every corner. If you want real intel, start focusing on HUMINT again. I read a very good book written by the guy whom the movie "Syriana" was based. Basically it boiled down to the CIA moving away from tried and true practices of gathering intel through human means, and becoming heavily reliant on both technology and politics to get stuff done, a major factor why he retired. Anyway, just my two cents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is not that technology ca n't sift through some language as easy as it wants to .
The problem is that ( I am speaking for US and some allies ) we have moved away from HUMAN intel .
All the technology in the world can be rendered useless when for example , terrorists cells start to use face to face only communication in a tree like scheme .
Only a few people ever talk to the people that pull the strings , and they talk to only a few people , only by passing letters or by talking face to face .
I took a counter-surveillance course where I was amazed at the relative ease it took to shake even trained professionals .
( It was also very fun to learn how to make drops and such ) The point being that if someone really does n't want to get caught , especially in a foreign country , its not too difficult .
Humans are vulnerable , weak , and irrational beings capable of cognitive dissonance at every corner .
If you want real intel , start focusing on HUMINT again .
I read a very good book written by the guy whom the movie " Syriana " was based .
Basically it boiled down to the CIA moving away from tried and true practices of gathering intel through human means , and becoming heavily reliant on both technology and politics to get stuff done , a major factor why he retired .
Anyway , just my two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is not that technology can't sift through some language as easy as it wants to.
The problem is that (I am speaking for US and some allies) we have moved away from HUMAN intel.
All the technology in the world can be rendered useless when for example, terrorists cells start to use face to face only communication in a tree like scheme.
Only a few people ever talk to the people that pull the strings, and they talk to only a few people, only by passing letters or by talking face to face.
I took a counter-surveillance course where I was amazed at the relative ease it took to shake even trained professionals.
(It was also very fun to learn how to make drops and such) The point being that if someone really doesn't want to get caught, especially in a foreign country, its not too difficult.
Humans are vulnerable, weak, and irrational beings capable of cognitive dissonance at every corner.
If you want real intel, start focusing on HUMINT again.
I read a very good book written by the guy whom the movie "Syriana" was based.
Basically it boiled down to the CIA moving away from tried and true practices of gathering intel through human means, and becoming heavily reliant on both technology and politics to get stuff done, a major factor why he retired.
Anyway, just my two cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367278</id>
	<title>Not Able Danger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is more about technical difficulties in raw data interpretation, not the apparent mining of financial and intelligence records which was part of "Able Danger".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is more about technical difficulties in raw data interpretation , not the apparent mining of financial and intelligence records which was part of " Able Danger " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is more about technical difficulties in raw data interpretation, not the apparent mining of financial and intelligence records which was part of "Able Danger".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367240</id>
	<title>Re:For example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone says, "I'm gonna bust a cap in the president's head", they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering. The computer will back me up on this.</p></div><p>Ah that's nothing, think of all the fun when Pete Souza sends emails that he's going to "shoot the president" at a certain public appearance.</p><p>(For the google impaired, Souza was appointed by Obama to the post of "official white house photographer", and weirdly enough I believe he was also Reagans photographer)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone says , " I 'm gon na bust a cap in the president 's head " , they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering .
The computer will back me up on this.Ah that 's nothing , think of all the fun when Pete Souza sends emails that he 's going to " shoot the president " at a certain public appearance .
( For the google impaired , Souza was appointed by Obama to the post of " official white house photographer " , and weirdly enough I believe he was also Reagans photographer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone says, "I'm gonna bust a cap in the president's head", they could be referring to destroy some sort of hat or other head covering.
The computer will back me up on this.Ah that's nothing, think of all the fun when Pete Souza sends emails that he's going to "shoot the president" at a certain public appearance.
(For the google impaired, Souza was appointed by Obama to the post of "official white house photographer", and weirdly enough I believe he was also Reagans photographer)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368030</id>
	<title>Roosevelt let it happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260299940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pearl Harbor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pearl Harbor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pearl Harbor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368574</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is misunderstoood...</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1260301860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an entire field devoted to such a concept: Semantics.  FYI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an entire field devoted to such a concept : Semantics .
FYI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an entire field devoted to such a concept: Semantics.
FYI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366474</id>
	<title>This stuff is hard.  I do it every day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We use an expert system to try and figure out what air traffic controllers are doing in a simulation.  It is a big system and making it fast means trading alot of memory for speed.  Identifying rules to categorize what a subject is doing is hard, especially because you see things that arent' expected when you think about what rules the system can use to identify a category of interaction.  Looking at a stream of recording of system events is similar to looking at a stream of intelligence hits like 'subject crossed border x', 'subject a called subject b', 'subject purchased x, y, and z with credit card #k at mid #l with location coordinants (m,n)'  The hardest part is that the system wants context but computers don't do context very well.  To do it fast, you have to come up with vectors representing context state and rules and accept a certain amount of errors.  Data can easily run into the hundreds of gigabytes for only 1 hour of monitoring a self contained experiment.  It is fun though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We use an expert system to try and figure out what air traffic controllers are doing in a simulation .
It is a big system and making it fast means trading alot of memory for speed .
Identifying rules to categorize what a subject is doing is hard , especially because you see things that arent ' expected when you think about what rules the system can use to identify a category of interaction .
Looking at a stream of recording of system events is similar to looking at a stream of intelligence hits like 'subject crossed border x ' , 'subject a called subject b ' , 'subject purchased x , y , and z with credit card # k at mid # l with location coordinants ( m,n ) ' The hardest part is that the system wants context but computers do n't do context very well .
To do it fast , you have to come up with vectors representing context state and rules and accept a certain amount of errors .
Data can easily run into the hundreds of gigabytes for only 1 hour of monitoring a self contained experiment .
It is fun though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use an expert system to try and figure out what air traffic controllers are doing in a simulation.
It is a big system and making it fast means trading alot of memory for speed.
Identifying rules to categorize what a subject is doing is hard, especially because you see things that arent' expected when you think about what rules the system can use to identify a category of interaction.
Looking at a stream of recording of system events is similar to looking at a stream of intelligence hits like 'subject crossed border x', 'subject a called subject b', 'subject purchased x, y, and z with credit card #k at mid #l with location coordinants (m,n)'  The hardest part is that the system wants context but computers don't do context very well.
To do it fast, you have to come up with vectors representing context state and rules and accept a certain amount of errors.
Data can easily run into the hundreds of gigabytes for only 1 hour of monitoring a self contained experiment.
It is fun though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369076</id>
	<title>Book</title>
	<author>LuckySweetheart</author>
	<datestamp>1260304080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The book was by Robert Baer, and is called <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/See-No-Evil/Robert-Baer/e/9781400046843/?itm=1&amp;USRI=see+no+evil+robert+baer" title="barnesandnoble.com" rel="nofollow">"See No Evil"</a> [barnesandnoble.com].

I agree that it was very good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The book was by Robert Baer , and is called " See No Evil " [ barnesandnoble.com ] .
I agree that it was very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book was by Robert Baer, and is called "See No Evil" [barnesandnoble.com].
I agree that it was very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368746</id>
	<title>Re:America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260302520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When the US cut off access to critical war resources, Japan had only two choices:  End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper, or take control of the resources by force.  For political and ideological reason, the former option wasn't much of an option at all.</p></div><p>Even if this is true, the fact remains that the best long-term strategy would certainly have been to end the war immediately.  They ended up retreating to Japan anyway, only with horrific losses.  I'm not saying they were stupid at the time, but given that we have the benefit of hindsight it is curious that anyone would defend the strategy as sound; clearly it was not, and since you even claim that they were forced into accepting it through political pressure, perhaps they did not themselves believe it was the optimal strategy.  It's not like this realization would have necessarily stopped them; the Imperial Japanese forces didn't have much of a reputation for knowing when to quit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the US cut off access to critical war resources , Japan had only two choices : End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper , or take control of the resources by force .
For political and ideological reason , the former option was n't much of an option at all.Even if this is true , the fact remains that the best long-term strategy would certainly have been to end the war immediately .
They ended up retreating to Japan anyway , only with horrific losses .
I 'm not saying they were stupid at the time , but given that we have the benefit of hindsight it is curious that anyone would defend the strategy as sound ; clearly it was not , and since you even claim that they were forced into accepting it through political pressure , perhaps they did not themselves believe it was the optimal strategy .
It 's not like this realization would have necessarily stopped them ; the Imperial Japanese forces did n't have much of a reputation for knowing when to quit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the US cut off access to critical war resources, Japan had only two choices:  End the war almost immediately and retreat back to Japan proper, or take control of the resources by force.
For political and ideological reason, the former option wasn't much of an option at all.Even if this is true, the fact remains that the best long-term strategy would certainly have been to end the war immediately.
They ended up retreating to Japan anyway, only with horrific losses.
I'm not saying they were stupid at the time, but given that we have the benefit of hindsight it is curious that anyone would defend the strategy as sound; clearly it was not, and since you even claim that they were forced into accepting it through political pressure, perhaps they did not themselves believe it was the optimal strategy.
It's not like this realization would have necessarily stopped them; the Imperial Japanese forces didn't have much of a reputation for knowing when to quit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30372474</id>
	<title>Re:America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1260278160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor. For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia.</p></div></blockquote><p>In some alternate universe where Japan didn't attack southwards to obtain resources, sure.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources, the Japanese had only one recourse.</p></div></blockquote><p>In some alternate universe where the US blockaded shipping routes, sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor .
For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia.In some alternate universe where Japan did n't attack southwards to obtain resources , sure .
  So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources , the Japanese had only one recourse.In some alternate universe where the US blockaded shipping routes , sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor.
For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia.In some alternate universe where Japan didn't attack southwards to obtain resources, sure.
  So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources, the Japanese had only one recourse.In some alternate universe where the US blockaded shipping routes, sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367506</id>
	<title>Time for a Reminder ...</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1260297720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computers and Common Sense, the Myth of Thinking Machines. 1961 by Mortimer Taube.
<br> <br>
Still valid, but mostly unheard of.
<br> <br>
Interesting that in the English Wikipedia there is even no article on him.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers and Common Sense , the Myth of Thinking Machines .
1961 by Mortimer Taube .
Still valid , but mostly unheard of .
Interesting that in the English Wikipedia there is even no article on him .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers and Common Sense, the Myth of Thinking Machines.
1961 by Mortimer Taube.
Still valid, but mostly unheard of.
Interesting that in the English Wikipedia there is even no article on him.
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366478</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously...</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1260292860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ambiguity IS security</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ambiguity IS security</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ambiguity IS security</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367340</id>
	<title>Terror e-mails the NSA missed</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1260297000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your base are belong to us.  You have no chance to survive make your time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your base are belong to us .
You have no chance to survive make your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368652</id>
	<title>Re:Big Brother is watching you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260302160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you use your real name when you do a crime? Maybe it's lefty watching, not righty??? Terror lurks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you use your real name when you do a crime ?
Maybe it 's lefty watching , not righty ? ? ?
Terror lurks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you use your real name when you do a crime?
Maybe it's lefty watching, not righty???
Terror lurks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</id>
	<title>HUMINT  SIGINT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining).  You can't get a sense of a person's thoughts by reading something nearly as well as you can by talking to them.  IMHO, fighting any war remotely will last much longer than one fought with boots on the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence ( data mining ) .
You ca n't get a sense of a person 's thoughts by reading something nearly as well as you can by talking to them .
IMHO , fighting any war remotely will last much longer than one fought with boots on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining).
You can't get a sense of a person's thoughts by reading something nearly as well as you can by talking to them.
IMHO, fighting any war remotely will last much longer than one fought with boots on the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520</id>
	<title>Any statistician could have told them that</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260292920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one thing that's worse than too little data: Too much data that may or may not be relevant to your task.</p><p>It's bad to have no data. But that can be remedied. Having more data than you can process, worse, data where you cannot discriminate between wheat and chaff is pretty much useless. And that's basically what we have now. They were busy collecting data left and right, not asking whether that data could be relevant. Now they're stuck with a buttload of data that may or may not be relevant.</p><p>The best solution? Toss it and start over. And this time, collect only what's relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing that 's worse than too little data : Too much data that may or may not be relevant to your task.It 's bad to have no data .
But that can be remedied .
Having more data than you can process , worse , data where you can not discriminate between wheat and chaff is pretty much useless .
And that 's basically what we have now .
They were busy collecting data left and right , not asking whether that data could be relevant .
Now they 're stuck with a buttload of data that may or may not be relevant.The best solution ?
Toss it and start over .
And this time , collect only what 's relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing that's worse than too little data: Too much data that may or may not be relevant to your task.It's bad to have no data.
But that can be remedied.
Having more data than you can process, worse, data where you cannot discriminate between wheat and chaff is pretty much useless.
And that's basically what we have now.
They were busy collecting data left and right, not asking whether that data could be relevant.
Now they're stuck with a buttload of data that may or may not be relevant.The best solution?
Toss it and start over.
And this time, collect only what's relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367042</id>
	<title>Unless...</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1260295560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day isn't very useful.'</p><p>Hmm, this could be a problem, unless.... *thinking pose*</p><p>I know! Time travel!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day is n't very useful .
'Hmm , this could be a problem , unless.... * thinking pose * I know !
Time travel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'A system that takes a week to discover a bombing will occur in a day isn't very useful.
'Hmm, this could be a problem, unless.... *thinking pose*I know!
Time travel!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367448</id>
	<title>Re:Computer Analysis Feedback Loop</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1260297480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, they will never achieve their goal.  It is very easy to fool a set of rules.</p><p>communicate in pig latin and replace key words with a word from a list.</p><p>Bomb = tree, fat cat, snotty bunny, or Taco.<br>Meet at = Go to lunch, fly a kite near, I eat hamburgers across from, etc....</p><p>And those rules are very easy to get to your operatives and can be parsed quickly.  If you release new phrasebooks you can confuse the hell out of the detection systems well past the time you need to.  Remember, if they detect your communication a day late, then you were 100\% successful.</p><p>That is the benefit of being a human, you can easily parse silly shit into real data even when it's from a pool of silly words.</p><p>and that's just for in the clear comms.  It's brain dead easy to send an encrypted message they will either miss or cant decode until it's too pate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , they will never achieve their goal .
It is very easy to fool a set of rules.communicate in pig latin and replace key words with a word from a list.Bomb = tree , fat cat , snotty bunny , or Taco.Meet at = Go to lunch , fly a kite near , I eat hamburgers across from , etc....And those rules are very easy to get to your operatives and can be parsed quickly .
If you release new phrasebooks you can confuse the hell out of the detection systems well past the time you need to .
Remember , if they detect your communication a day late , then you were 100 \ % successful.That is the benefit of being a human , you can easily parse silly shit into real data even when it 's from a pool of silly words.and that 's just for in the clear comms .
It 's brain dead easy to send an encrypted message they will either miss or cant decode until it 's too pate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, they will never achieve their goal.
It is very easy to fool a set of rules.communicate in pig latin and replace key words with a word from a list.Bomb = tree, fat cat, snotty bunny, or Taco.Meet at = Go to lunch, fly a kite near, I eat hamburgers across from, etc....And those rules are very easy to get to your operatives and can be parsed quickly.
If you release new phrasebooks you can confuse the hell out of the detection systems well past the time you need to.
Remember, if they detect your communication a day late, then you were 100\% successful.That is the benefit of being a human, you can easily parse silly shit into real data even when it's from a pool of silly words.and that's just for in the clear comms.
It's brain dead easy to send an encrypted message they will either miss or cant decode until it's too pate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30370912</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1260269640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Straight out of my "Languages: Animal, Human, and Machine" class in '88 -</p><p>"A professor teaching a languages class once asserted, 'There is no double-positive in the English language that means the opposite, like the double-negative.' To which a student replied, 'Yeah, right!'"</p><p>Another test case:</p><p>Prat: "Everything I say is a lie!"</p><p>computer response: Erk!<br>human response: What a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Straight out of my " Languages : Animal , Human , and Machine " class in '88 - " A professor teaching a languages class once asserted , 'There is no double-positive in the English language that means the opposite , like the double-negative .
' To which a student replied , 'Yeah , right !
' " Another test case : Prat : " Everything I say is a lie !
" computer response : Erk ! human response : What a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straight out of my "Languages: Animal, Human, and Machine" class in '88 -"A professor teaching a languages class once asserted, 'There is no double-positive in the English language that means the opposite, like the double-negative.
' To which a student replied, 'Yeah, right!
'"Another test case:Prat: "Everything I say is a lie!
"computer response: Erk!human response: What a dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373582</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is misunderstoood...</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1260287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness. Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I seriously doubt there is any understanding within context going on. They wouldn't have time for more than keyword searches (text and audio depending on medium) in any language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't separate text , meaning and culture and consciousness .
Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard ; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge .
      I seriously doubt there is any understanding within context going on .
They would n't have time for more than keyword searches ( text and audio depending on medium ) in any language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness.
Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.
      I seriously doubt there is any understanding within context going on.
They wouldn't have time for more than keyword searches (text and audio depending on medium) in any language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366534</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1260293040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining).</p></div><p>Exactly.  If people can't sift through the mass of information (and misinformation) we have today, what hope does a computer have?  Just look at how hard it is to find "The Truth" in todays news, or on the Internet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence ( data mining ) .Exactly .
If people ca n't sift through the mass of information ( and misinformation ) we have today , what hope does a computer have ?
Just look at how hard it is to find " The Truth " in todays news , or on the Internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining).Exactly.
If people can't sift through the mass of information (and misinformation) we have today, what hope does a computer have?
Just look at how hard it is to find "The Truth" in todays news, or on the Internet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366758</id>
	<title>No More Data Needed</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1260294060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether &mdash; more information than they can deal with . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>This is the ultimate argument against those defending increased surveillance activities to fight terrorism (or any other crime). Intelligence agencies already have way more information than they can deal with just from public sources. 99.999\% of it is the noise of people going about their normal lives. Getting out the interesting bits is a hard problem, and adding more is only going to slow you down. It can help if you've already nailed down a good list of suspects and therefore have a small, targeted list of people to watch. But if that's the case, what's the big deal about getting a warrant?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether    more information than they can deal with .
. .This is the ultimate argument against those defending increased surveillance activities to fight terrorism ( or any other crime ) .
Intelligence agencies already have way more information than they can deal with just from public sources .
99.999 \ % of it is the noise of people going about their normal lives .
Getting out the interesting bits is a hard problem , and adding more is only going to slow you down .
It can help if you 've already nailed down a good list of suspects and therefore have a small , targeted list of people to watch .
But if that 's the case , what 's the big deal about getting a warrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's intelligence agencies have another problem altogether — more information than they can deal with .
. .This is the ultimate argument against those defending increased surveillance activities to fight terrorism (or any other crime).
Intelligence agencies already have way more information than they can deal with just from public sources.
99.999\% of it is the noise of people going about their normal lives.
Getting out the interesting bits is a hard problem, and adding more is only going to slow you down.
It can help if you've already nailed down a good list of suspects and therefore have a small, targeted list of people to watch.
But if that's the case, what's the big deal about getting a warrant?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373428</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Fix</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1260285600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You were modded Insightful, and you have no clue what you're talking about.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Not only does the NSA and other spook agencies do all you suggested, they heavily outsource to defense contractors to do much of it. So much for your bureaucrat nonsense, not to mention the top secret background checks vis a vis your outsourcing to foreigners comments.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Not to say spook employees aren't smarter than you anyway, as far as your alleged superiority to bureaucrats go.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But you got all the right wing talking points right.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest .
      You were modded Insightful , and you have no clue what you 're talking about .
      Not only does the NSA and other spook agencies do all you suggested , they heavily outsource to defense contractors to do much of it .
So much for your bureaucrat nonsense , not to mention the top secret background checks vis a vis your outsourcing to foreigners comments .
      Not to say spook employees are n't smarter than you anyway , as far as your alleged superiority to bureaucrats go .
      But you got all the right wing talking points right .
  rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.
      You were modded Insightful, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
      Not only does the NSA and other spook agencies do all you suggested, they heavily outsource to defense contractors to do much of it.
So much for your bureaucrat nonsense, not to mention the top secret background checks vis a vis your outsourcing to foreigners comments.
      Not to say spook employees aren't smarter than you anyway, as far as your alleged superiority to bureaucrats go.
      But you got all the right wing talking points right.
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367504</id>
	<title>Yes. Also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260297720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the article talks about "information" but forgets that "data" is not quite the same thing. "information" is what results once the processed data is given context, analysed, and understood. Data without that remains data, and essentially useless.</p><p>Both these make gigantic databases full of potentially privacy-damaging data worse than useless. You can't do much good with them, but you can't be sure they won't be misused. Still, various bigwigs whose job it is to understand this insist that oversized databases are a "must capability to have". There's your tax money at work.</p><p>And that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the yurp "data sharing" agreements, the TSA flight data hoovering, various biometric databases, telecoms databases in yurp and NSA hoovering in yoosah, and so on and so forth. It's all the same bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the article talks about " information " but forgets that " data " is not quite the same thing .
" information " is what results once the processed data is given context , analysed , and understood .
Data without that remains data , and essentially useless.Both these make gigantic databases full of potentially privacy-damaging data worse than useless .
You ca n't do much good with them , but you ca n't be sure they wo n't be misused .
Still , various bigwigs whose job it is to understand this insist that oversized databases are a " must capability to have " .
There 's your tax money at work.And that does n't even begin to touch on things like the yurp " data sharing " agreements , the TSA flight data hoovering , various biometric databases , telecoms databases in yurp and NSA hoovering in yoosah , and so on and so forth .
It 's all the same bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the article talks about "information" but forgets that "data" is not quite the same thing.
"information" is what results once the processed data is given context, analysed, and understood.
Data without that remains data, and essentially useless.Both these make gigantic databases full of potentially privacy-damaging data worse than useless.
You can't do much good with them, but you can't be sure they won't be misused.
Still, various bigwigs whose job it is to understand this insist that oversized databases are a "must capability to have".
There's your tax money at work.And that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the yurp "data sharing" agreements, the TSA flight data hoovering, various biometric databases, telecoms databases in yurp and NSA hoovering in yoosah, and so on and so forth.
It's all the same bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368402</id>
	<title>Re:Any statistician could have told them that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>great idea.  how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>great idea .
how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great idea.
how?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30370130</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, how much did you pay for that? If you wan't I can give you an online course in Hostage Negotiation, you'll master terms such as: 'stall', 'goner', 'take-m-out' and more. Learning might very well prove vital for your survival one day. This offer includes a certified diploma. I'll gladly take your two cents as an advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , how much did you pay for that ?
If you wa n't I can give you an online course in Hostage Negotiation , you 'll master terms such as : 'stall ' , 'goner ' , 'take-m-out ' and more .
Learning might very well prove vital for your survival one day .
This offer includes a certified diploma .
I 'll gladly take your two cents as an advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, how much did you pay for that?
If you wan't I can give you an online course in Hostage Negotiation, you'll master terms such as: 'stall', 'goner', 'take-m-out' and more.
Learning might very well prove vital for your survival one day.
This offer includes a certified diploma.
I'll gladly take your two cents as an advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368852</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>LuckySweetheart</author>
	<datestamp>1260303000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SIGINT isn't just data mining. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGINT" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wiki article</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> <br>

James Bamford's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Body-Secrets-Ultra-Secret-National-Security/dp/0385499086/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1260299321&amp;sr=1-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">"Body of Secrets"</a> [amazon.com] mentions SIGINT was used on naval vessels to determine what kinds of submarines, etc. they were up against, merely by the radio frequencies and signals received.  It's really cool stuff.<br> <br>

Robert Baer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/See-No-Evil-Soldier-Terrorism/dp/140004684X/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1260299093&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">"See No Evil"</a> [amazon.com] is the perfect explanation of why our intel community, especially on the HUMINT side, is so fucked right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SIGINT is n't just data mining .
Wiki article [ wikipedia.org ] .
James Bamford 's " Body of Secrets " [ amazon.com ] mentions SIGINT was used on naval vessels to determine what kinds of submarines , etc .
they were up against , merely by the radio frequencies and signals received .
It 's really cool stuff .
Robert Baer 's " See No Evil " [ amazon.com ] is the perfect explanation of why our intel community , especially on the HUMINT side , is so fucked right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SIGINT isn't just data mining.
Wiki article [wikipedia.org].
James Bamford's "Body of Secrets" [amazon.com] mentions SIGINT was used on naval vessels to determine what kinds of submarines, etc.
they were up against, merely by the radio frequencies and signals received.
It's really cool stuff.
Robert Baer's "See No Evil" [amazon.com] is the perfect explanation of why our intel community, especially on the HUMINT side, is so fucked right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366566</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1260293220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence</p></div><p>People lie.
<br> <br>
The US government is especially good at sending bogus signals.  There's no reason to believe other governments aren't as good.
<br> <br>
All intelligence has it's problems.   The trick is to put together enough different sources to weed out the bogus, and home in on the truth, all while keeping everything secret.  Basically, it's an impossible task, but sometimes it's good enough, and sometimes you go to war looking for WMD that aren't there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligencePeople lie .
The US government is especially good at sending bogus signals .
There 's no reason to believe other governments are n't as good .
All intelligence has it 's problems .
The trick is to put together enough different sources to weed out the bogus , and home in on the truth , all while keeping everything secret .
Basically , it 's an impossible task , but sometimes it 's good enough , and sometimes you go to war looking for WMD that are n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligencePeople lie.
The US government is especially good at sending bogus signals.
There's no reason to believe other governments aren't as good.
All intelligence has it's problems.
The trick is to put together enough different sources to weed out the bogus, and home in on the truth, all while keeping everything secret.
Basically, it's an impossible task, but sometimes it's good enough, and sometimes you go to war looking for WMD that aren't there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367284</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1260296640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way it is (should be?) done is as follows:</p><p>Data mine to generate reports to human beings.</p><p>Conventional strictly human intelligence is still done and needed. The pitfall is that an organization could try to cut costs too much by relying too much on computer generated reports. Aside from that pitfall, data mining is efficient to find instances where traditional human methods would have failed as long as you tune the system not to have a ridiculous amount of false positives.</p><p>For the time being, human review is still needed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way it is ( should be ?
) done is as follows : Data mine to generate reports to human beings.Conventional strictly human intelligence is still done and needed .
The pitfall is that an organization could try to cut costs too much by relying too much on computer generated reports .
Aside from that pitfall , data mining is efficient to find instances where traditional human methods would have failed as long as you tune the system not to have a ridiculous amount of false positives.For the time being , human review is still needed ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way it is (should be?
) done is as follows:Data mine to generate reports to human beings.Conventional strictly human intelligence is still done and needed.
The pitfall is that an organization could try to cut costs too much by relying too much on computer generated reports.
Aside from that pitfall, data mining is efficient to find instances where traditional human methods would have failed as long as you tune the system not to have a ridiculous amount of false positives.For the time being, human review is still needed ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369504</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1260305880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ambiguity has always been security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ambiguity has always been security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ambiguity has always been security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367306</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1260296820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody's actually proposing replacing one with the other, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody 's actually proposing replacing one with the other , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody's actually proposing replacing one with the other, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556</id>
	<title>America forced Japan's hand</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260293160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor. For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia. They envisioned "breathing space" like Germany did and meant to build an "Eastern co-prosperity sphere" led by an enlightened Japanese government. Naturally there was some resistance from the neighboring countries, but America and Japan didn't really have any reason to fight except that Japan was allied with Germany and there was a greater anti-imperialist zeitgeist among the Allies.</p><p>So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources, the Japanese had only one recourse. They bombed Pearl Harbor in an attempt to destroy as much of the American fleet as possible in the shortest amount of time. It was strategically the right move.</p><p>Now, if you want to say that the American military had its head up its ass that fateful morning, you'll find support from most historians. But to make the claim that no one expected an attack is simply absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor .
For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia .
They envisioned " breathing space " like Germany did and meant to build an " Eastern co-prosperity sphere " led by an enlightened Japanese government .
Naturally there was some resistance from the neighboring countries , but America and Japan did n't really have any reason to fight except that Japan was allied with Germany and there was a greater anti-imperialist zeitgeist among the Allies.So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources , the Japanese had only one recourse .
They bombed Pearl Harbor in an attempt to destroy as much of the American fleet as possible in the shortest amount of time .
It was strategically the right move.Now , if you want to say that the American military had its head up its ass that fateful morning , you 'll find support from most historians .
But to make the claim that no one expected an attack is simply absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Japan had only one real front in the lead up to Pearl Harbor.
For all intents and purposes Japan was only focused on expanding westward into Asia.
They envisioned "breathing space" like Germany did and meant to build an "Eastern co-prosperity sphere" led by an enlightened Japanese government.
Naturally there was some resistance from the neighboring countries, but America and Japan didn't really have any reason to fight except that Japan was allied with Germany and there was a greater anti-imperialist zeitgeist among the Allies.So when America decided to blockade South Asian shipping routes to effectively starve Japan of steel and other necessary resources, the Japanese had only one recourse.
They bombed Pearl Harbor in an attempt to destroy as much of the American fleet as possible in the shortest amount of time.
It was strategically the right move.Now, if you want to say that the American military had its head up its ass that fateful morning, you'll find support from most historians.
But to make the claim that no one expected an attack is simply absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368594</id>
	<title>On the bright side</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1260301980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone who uses the expression "is da' bomb" will be arrested and taken off the street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone who uses the expression " is da ' bomb " will be arrested and taken off the street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone who uses the expression "is da' bomb" will be arrested and taken off the street.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369746</id>
	<title>Questionable example</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1260263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum\_memo" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum\_memo</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum \ _memo [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum\_memo [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732</id>
	<title>Big Brother is watching you</title>
	<author>br00tus</author>
	<datestamp>1260294000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the mid 1990s I watched a video tape of "The Falcon and the Snowman".  It is based on a real story of a young man who worked at a sensitive location at TRW (his father was in the FBI and got him the job through the old boy network) which was responsible for sending and receiving CIA cables from overseas.  Sometimes, they mixed up the TWXs and they saw cables they weren't supposed to.  It was by this that he learned of how the CIA helped in the overthrow the government of Australia in the 1970s, the famous Whitlam constitutional crisis.  You can read about it on Wikipedia.  It can be debated how effective or ineffective the CIA's efforts were, but they've never denied their involvement, and in fact it was alleged that John Kerr was a CIA asset.

Anyhow, so one day in 1997 or 1998 I was sitting at my SunOS x86 workstation at work, back before NAT had become popular, and I decided to surf the web and visit some lefty Australian web sites that discussed the extent of CIA involvement in overthrowing Australia's government in the 1970s.  Several days later, I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation, scanning for any information about it.  If I hadn't set my workstation to log absolutely everything, if it wasn't a UNIX workstation, if I didn't control the Cisco router and access list and so on and so forth I never would have seen it, it would have been a standard SNMP request.  In fact, I didn't log for everything and who knows what other queries came to the machine.  I saved the request for years but then lost it in a hard drive crash.  It came out of a US army intelligence division (.MIL) that was based in Quantico, Virginia and which had some long acronym which I now forget.  I thought the military wasn't supposed to monitor the communications of US citizens, but apparently not in this case.  Also, as soon as I saw this, I thought of how I had read about Whitlam and the CIA on the Australian web site days before, and that was the only thing I had done on the machine that they might have been interested in.  With the Patriot Act etc. who knows what will be happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the mid 1990s I watched a video tape of " The Falcon and the Snowman " .
It is based on a real story of a young man who worked at a sensitive location at TRW ( his father was in the FBI and got him the job through the old boy network ) which was responsible for sending and receiving CIA cables from overseas .
Sometimes , they mixed up the TWXs and they saw cables they were n't supposed to .
It was by this that he learned of how the CIA helped in the overthrow the government of Australia in the 1970s , the famous Whitlam constitutional crisis .
You can read about it on Wikipedia .
It can be debated how effective or ineffective the CIA 's efforts were , but they 've never denied their involvement , and in fact it was alleged that John Kerr was a CIA asset .
Anyhow , so one day in 1997 or 1998 I was sitting at my SunOS x86 workstation at work , back before NAT had become popular , and I decided to surf the web and visit some lefty Australian web sites that discussed the extent of CIA involvement in overthrowing Australia 's government in the 1970s .
Several days later , I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation , scanning for any information about it .
If I had n't set my workstation to log absolutely everything , if it was n't a UNIX workstation , if I did n't control the Cisco router and access list and so on and so forth I never would have seen it , it would have been a standard SNMP request .
In fact , I did n't log for everything and who knows what other queries came to the machine .
I saved the request for years but then lost it in a hard drive crash .
It came out of a US army intelligence division ( .MIL ) that was based in Quantico , Virginia and which had some long acronym which I now forget .
I thought the military was n't supposed to monitor the communications of US citizens , but apparently not in this case .
Also , as soon as I saw this , I thought of how I had read about Whitlam and the CIA on the Australian web site days before , and that was the only thing I had done on the machine that they might have been interested in .
With the Patriot Act etc .
who knows what will be happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the mid 1990s I watched a video tape of "The Falcon and the Snowman".
It is based on a real story of a young man who worked at a sensitive location at TRW (his father was in the FBI and got him the job through the old boy network) which was responsible for sending and receiving CIA cables from overseas.
Sometimes, they mixed up the TWXs and they saw cables they weren't supposed to.
It was by this that he learned of how the CIA helped in the overthrow the government of Australia in the 1970s, the famous Whitlam constitutional crisis.
You can read about it on Wikipedia.
It can be debated how effective or ineffective the CIA's efforts were, but they've never denied their involvement, and in fact it was alleged that John Kerr was a CIA asset.
Anyhow, so one day in 1997 or 1998 I was sitting at my SunOS x86 workstation at work, back before NAT had become popular, and I decided to surf the web and visit some lefty Australian web sites that discussed the extent of CIA involvement in overthrowing Australia's government in the 1970s.
Several days later, I noticed SNMP requests coming into my workstation, scanning for any information about it.
If I hadn't set my workstation to log absolutely everything, if it wasn't a UNIX workstation, if I didn't control the Cisco router and access list and so on and so forth I never would have seen it, it would have been a standard SNMP request.
In fact, I didn't log for everything and who knows what other queries came to the machine.
I saved the request for years but then lost it in a hard drive crash.
It came out of a US army intelligence division (.MIL) that was based in Quantico, Virginia and which had some long acronym which I now forget.
I thought the military wasn't supposed to monitor the communications of US citizens, but apparently not in this case.
Also, as soon as I saw this, I thought of how I had read about Whitlam and the CIA on the Australian web site days before, and that was the only thing I had done on the machine that they might have been interested in.
With the Patriot Act etc.
who knows what will be happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373280</id>
	<title>dunno 'bout a blockade...</title>
	<author>airdrummer</author>
	<datestamp>1260284280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but we did embargo the sale of u.s. oil to japan in retaliation for their move into southern indochina, which left them no choice but to seize the oil fields of the dutch east indies. and the only obstacle to that was the u.s. fleet @ pearl, making ww2 the 1st oil war.</p><p>so now \_we're\_ in the same oil-supply position as japan was, which is why we've been in the middle east since ww2, desert storm being the 2nd oil war...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but we did embargo the sale of u.s. oil to japan in retaliation for their move into southern indochina , which left them no choice but to seize the oil fields of the dutch east indies .
and the only obstacle to that was the u.s. fleet @ pearl , making ww2 the 1st oil war.so now \ _we 're \ _ in the same oil-supply position as japan was , which is why we 've been in the middle east since ww2 , desert storm being the 2nd oil war.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but we did embargo the sale of u.s. oil to japan in retaliation for their move into southern indochina, which left them no choice but to seize the oil fields of the dutch east indies.
and the only obstacle to that was the u.s. fleet @ pearl, making ww2 the 1st oil war.so now \_we're\_ in the same oil-supply position as japan was, which is why we've been in the middle east since ww2, desert storm being the 2nd oil war...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368522</id>
	<title>Re:HUMINT SIGINT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should post it all on Slashdot and let us decide!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should post it all on Slashdot and let us decide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should post it all on Slashdot and let us decide!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368304</id>
	<title>Easy Fix</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1260300840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is both hard and simple at the same time:  Hire Google-like problem solvers.  There are a lot of people really good at logic problems.  However, companies (including the government) don't hire smart people because they are smart. They hire skillsets and such (when a smart person could be taught the skill set and get more done in 6 months than hiring a mediocre person that already has the skillset for the position).  Don't look for programmers.  Don't look for linguists.  Find people that can solve complex problems.  Motivate them.  Give them resources like programmers and linguists, and the ability to study those subjects directly as well.  And then the problem will be worked on.  But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.<br> <br>It's a cryptography problem.  There's information stored in codes.  Sometimes the code is regular language, sometimes slang, sometimes coded language, but it's all decoding meaning from words.  Problem solvers are better at solving the problem than having someone program a solution when no one actually figured out the solution, or having some linguists come up with direct matches that miss a large portion of what they want and get huge numbers of false positives.<br> <br>But hiring someone that doesn't know what they are doing and training them is anti-American.  We'll import our labor at a higher cost than actually train someone for the position.  So I don't think anyone will ever do it.  Google proved me wrong, but it doesn't seem anyone else is following their lead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is both hard and simple at the same time : Hire Google-like problem solvers .
There are a lot of people really good at logic problems .
However , companies ( including the government ) do n't hire smart people because they are smart .
They hire skillsets and such ( when a smart person could be taught the skill set and get more done in 6 months than hiring a mediocre person that already has the skillset for the position ) .
Do n't look for programmers .
Do n't look for linguists .
Find people that can solve complex problems .
Motivate them .
Give them resources like programmers and linguists , and the ability to study those subjects directly as well .
And then the problem will be worked on .
But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest .
It 's a cryptography problem .
There 's information stored in codes .
Sometimes the code is regular language , sometimes slang , sometimes coded language , but it 's all decoding meaning from words .
Problem solvers are better at solving the problem than having someone program a solution when no one actually figured out the solution , or having some linguists come up with direct matches that miss a large portion of what they want and get huge numbers of false positives .
But hiring someone that does n't know what they are doing and training them is anti-American .
We 'll import our labor at a higher cost than actually train someone for the position .
So I do n't think anyone will ever do it .
Google proved me wrong , but it does n't seem anyone else is following their lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is both hard and simple at the same time:  Hire Google-like problem solvers.
There are a lot of people really good at logic problems.
However, companies (including the government) don't hire smart people because they are smart.
They hire skillsets and such (when a smart person could be taught the skill set and get more done in 6 months than hiring a mediocre person that already has the skillset for the position).
Don't look for programmers.
Don't look for linguists.
Find people that can solve complex problems.
Motivate them.
Give them resources like programmers and linguists, and the ability to study those subjects directly as well.
And then the problem will be worked on.
But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.
It's a cryptography problem.
There's information stored in codes.
Sometimes the code is regular language, sometimes slang, sometimes coded language, but it's all decoding meaning from words.
Problem solvers are better at solving the problem than having someone program a solution when no one actually figured out the solution, or having some linguists come up with direct matches that miss a large portion of what they want and get huge numbers of false positives.
But hiring someone that doesn't know what they are doing and training them is anti-American.
We'll import our labor at a higher cost than actually train someone for the position.
So I don't think anyone will ever do it.
Google proved me wrong, but it doesn't seem anyone else is following their lead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367768</id>
	<title>Too much data?</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1260298740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times to serious potential terrorists use channels that could be monitored by the governments?  I'd figure - except for the low-hanging fruit that would probably expire themselves whilst hooking up their explosives, doing us all a favor in the process - that the \_real\_ bad guys would be almost out of reach as far as surveillance goes.  I mean, don't they all have encrypted private networks, if not at least encrypted phones, and other methods of communication?</p><p>So, of this volume of data, how much of it really pertains to serious, credible threats?  Of course, that's the answer the gov wants, but, seriously, are the most dangerous bad guys really that stupid to communicate their plans almost in the clear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times to serious potential terrorists use channels that could be monitored by the governments ?
I 'd figure - except for the low-hanging fruit that would probably expire themselves whilst hooking up their explosives , doing us all a favor in the process - that the \ _real \ _ bad guys would be almost out of reach as far as surveillance goes .
I mean , do n't they all have encrypted private networks , if not at least encrypted phones , and other methods of communication ? So , of this volume of data , how much of it really pertains to serious , credible threats ?
Of course , that 's the answer the gov wants , but , seriously , are the most dangerous bad guys really that stupid to communicate their plans almost in the clear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times to serious potential terrorists use channels that could be monitored by the governments?
I'd figure - except for the low-hanging fruit that would probably expire themselves whilst hooking up their explosives, doing us all a favor in the process - that the \_real\_ bad guys would be almost out of reach as far as surveillance goes.
I mean, don't they all have encrypted private networks, if not at least encrypted phones, and other methods of communication?So, of this volume of data, how much of it really pertains to serious, credible threats?
Of course, that's the answer the gov wants, but, seriously, are the most dangerous bad guys really that stupid to communicate their plans almost in the clear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30370130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30372474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_1522204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30372474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30373582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30368652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30371364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30367368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_1522204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30366522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30370130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_1522204.30369076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
