<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_1934239</id>
	<title>Cybersecurity Czar Job Is Useless, Says Spafford</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260780360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"It's been about seven months since Obama announced his plan to hire a cybersecurity coordinator, and the job is still vacant. Several prominent security experts have turned the position down, and in an interview on Threatpost, Purdue professor <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/qa-eugene-spafford-121409">Gene Spafford says that the position is pointless</a>. 'It won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. That does not give it much authority of any kind. So when I hear that there are supposedly people who have been interviewed for this cyber coordinator job and <a href="http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14\_gci1376268,00.html">didn't take it</a>, I'm not surprised. It's not a winning position. I'm not at all surprised by the fact that it's empty. <a href="http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/blog/post/on\_cyber\_czars\_and\_60-day\_reports/">That position is a blame-taking position</a>,' Spafford said."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " It 's been about seven months since Obama announced his plan to hire a cybersecurity coordinator , and the job is still vacant .
Several prominent security experts have turned the position down , and in an interview on Threatpost , Purdue professor Gene Spafford says that the position is pointless .
'It wo n't have any statutory authority .
It wo n't have any budgetary authority .
That does not give it much authority of any kind .
So when I hear that there are supposedly people who have been interviewed for this cyber coordinator job and did n't take it , I 'm not surprised .
It 's not a winning position .
I 'm not at all surprised by the fact that it 's empty .
That position is a blame-taking position, ' Spafford said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "It's been about seven months since Obama announced his plan to hire a cybersecurity coordinator, and the job is still vacant.
Several prominent security experts have turned the position down, and in an interview on Threatpost, Purdue professor Gene Spafford says that the position is pointless.
'It won't have any statutory authority.
It won't have any budgetary authority.
That does not give it much authority of any kind.
So when I hear that there are supposedly people who have been interviewed for this cyber coordinator job and didn't take it, I'm not surprised.
It's not a winning position.
I'm not at all surprised by the fact that it's empty.
That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435484</id>
	<title>it's a bad career move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260785340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truth be told, there are a lot of vacant EO jobs. Why?  Well, there's a good chance Barack Obama will be a one-termer, so who wants to take a pay cut, move to Washington DC, and deal with all the government red tape for a 3-year job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth be told , there are a lot of vacant EO jobs .
Why ? Well , there 's a good chance Barack Obama will be a one-termer , so who wants to take a pay cut , move to Washington DC , and deal with all the government red tape for a 3-year job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth be told, there are a lot of vacant EO jobs.
Why?  Well, there's a good chance Barack Obama will be a one-termer, so who wants to take a pay cut, move to Washington DC, and deal with all the government red tape for a 3-year job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435844</id>
	<title>I'm tellin' ya...</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1260787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Leo Laporte is *the* man for the job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Leo Laporte is * the * man for the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Leo Laporte is *the* man for the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30447460</id>
	<title>Actually, the private sector makes less</title>
	<author>Crazy Taco</author>
	<datestamp>1260904440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>particularly when you can make more money in the private sector</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm... you actually make way less in the private sector. A <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11\_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip" title="usatoday.com">USA Today article</a> [usatoday.com] that appeared last week confirmed what many of us have suspected for years, especially since this recession started. And that is that government employees make more than private sector employees. Period. They make more in salary (approximately 30\% more), they have far better benefits (healthcare, pension, etc), and they get more perks. It's not the working/middle class vs the wealthy anymore... the two classes we have now are apparently the unionized government aristocracy and all the private sector schmucks footing the bill for it all. </p><p>By the way, I know that in this article some government types tried to explain this away by claiming that salaries are so high because the government only fills really important jobs, and that if government employees took equivalent jobs in the private sector they would be getting paid less (all this was said without any evidence). My assertion (also without proof, but I think fairly likely) is that the people in government could not get the equivalent jobs in the private sector because they aren't qualified enough. Hence, they are still being overpaid. And my empirical evidence is that there really aren't any private sector organizations as disorganized, inefficient and generally inept as the federal government (just think about the failed TSA pdf redacting story that was on here the other day). Are our best and brightest really working there? Are people who would otherwise be qualified for important private sector jobs <i>really</i> giving up their salaries en masse so that they can join the ranks of "public servants"? Maybe at the cabinet secretary level this happens, but at pretty much all the other levels of the bureaucracy, I think not. If you work for the government, you are not a "servant", and all us serfs out in the private sector are overpaying you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>particularly when you can make more money in the private sectorUmm... you actually make way less in the private sector .
A USA Today article [ usatoday.com ] that appeared last week confirmed what many of us have suspected for years , especially since this recession started .
And that is that government employees make more than private sector employees .
Period. They make more in salary ( approximately 30 \ % more ) , they have far better benefits ( healthcare , pension , etc ) , and they get more perks .
It 's not the working/middle class vs the wealthy anymore... the two classes we have now are apparently the unionized government aristocracy and all the private sector schmucks footing the bill for it all .
By the way , I know that in this article some government types tried to explain this away by claiming that salaries are so high because the government only fills really important jobs , and that if government employees took equivalent jobs in the private sector they would be getting paid less ( all this was said without any evidence ) .
My assertion ( also without proof , but I think fairly likely ) is that the people in government could not get the equivalent jobs in the private sector because they are n't qualified enough .
Hence , they are still being overpaid .
And my empirical evidence is that there really are n't any private sector organizations as disorganized , inefficient and generally inept as the federal government ( just think about the failed TSA pdf redacting story that was on here the other day ) .
Are our best and brightest really working there ?
Are people who would otherwise be qualified for important private sector jobs really giving up their salaries en masse so that they can join the ranks of " public servants " ?
Maybe at the cabinet secretary level this happens , but at pretty much all the other levels of the bureaucracy , I think not .
If you work for the government , you are not a " servant " , and all us serfs out in the private sector are overpaying you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>particularly when you can make more money in the private sectorUmm... you actually make way less in the private sector.
A USA Today article [usatoday.com] that appeared last week confirmed what many of us have suspected for years, especially since this recession started.
And that is that government employees make more than private sector employees.
Period. They make more in salary (approximately 30\% more), they have far better benefits (healthcare, pension, etc), and they get more perks.
It's not the working/middle class vs the wealthy anymore... the two classes we have now are apparently the unionized government aristocracy and all the private sector schmucks footing the bill for it all.
By the way, I know that in this article some government types tried to explain this away by claiming that salaries are so high because the government only fills really important jobs, and that if government employees took equivalent jobs in the private sector they would be getting paid less (all this was said without any evidence).
My assertion (also without proof, but I think fairly likely) is that the people in government could not get the equivalent jobs in the private sector because they aren't qualified enough.
Hence, they are still being overpaid.
And my empirical evidence is that there really aren't any private sector organizations as disorganized, inefficient and generally inept as the federal government (just think about the failed TSA pdf redacting story that was on here the other day).
Are our best and brightest really working there?
Are people who would otherwise be qualified for important private sector jobs really giving up their salaries en masse so that they can join the ranks of "public servants"?
Maybe at the cabinet secretary level this happens, but at pretty much all the other levels of the bureaucracy, I think not.
If you work for the government, you are not a "servant", and all us serfs out in the private sector are overpaying you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435586</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1260785820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea I would take it as well. No win? not at all if you play the game.</p><p>"The problem is that we have not budgeted enough for the needed programs."<br>"The problem is that we do not the laws in place to solve the problems"<br>"The problem is that organized crime, terrorists, and drug lords are using piracy to make/launder money"<br>"This is a complex problem but with a enough study and the cooperation of industry and the goverment we can solve the problem."<br>By the time I am out I will have a nice big consulting job for a multinational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea I would take it as well .
No win ?
not at all if you play the game .
" The problem is that we have not budgeted enough for the needed programs .
" " The problem is that we do not the laws in place to solve the problems " " The problem is that organized crime , terrorists , and drug lords are using piracy to make/launder money " " This is a complex problem but with a enough study and the cooperation of industry and the goverment we can solve the problem .
" By the time I am out I will have a nice big consulting job for a multinational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea I would take it as well.
No win?
not at all if you play the game.
"The problem is that we have not budgeted enough for the needed programs.
""The problem is that we do not the laws in place to solve the problems""The problem is that organized crime, terrorists, and drug lords are using piracy to make/launder money""This is a complex problem but with a enough study and the cooperation of industry and the goverment we can solve the problem.
"By the time I am out I will have a nice big consulting job for a multinational.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435616</id>
	<title>Re:Well how about that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260785940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He isn't paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is n't paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He isn't paid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435562</id>
	<title>"Every American depends --</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1260785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>directly or indirectly -- on our system of information networks. They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being."</p><p>And despite it all, he is totally unwilling to tell us we have the right to access. Just more bla bla bla..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>directly or indirectly -- on our system of information networks .
They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure ; our national security and our personal well-being .
" And despite it all , he is totally unwilling to tell us we have the right to access .
Just more bla bla bla. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>directly or indirectly -- on our system of information networks.
They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being.
"And despite it all, he is totally unwilling to tell us we have the right to access.
Just more bla bla bla..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435450</id>
	<title>It's a perfect representation!</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1260785160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>It won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. That does not give it much authority of any kind</i>"
<br>
<br>
Kinda represents the majority of IT departments in big corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It wo n't have any statutory authority .
It wo n't have any budgetary authority .
That does not give it much authority of any kind " Kinda represents the majority of IT departments in big corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It won't have any statutory authority.
It won't have any budgetary authority.
That does not give it much authority of any kind"


Kinda represents the majority of IT departments in big corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436018</id>
	<title>Hope it stays vacant.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1260787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A person with the skills in  question can do productive work in the private sector, instead of being a tax-sucker.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A person with the skills in question can do productive work in the private sector , instead of being a tax-sucker.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person with the skills in  question can do productive work in the private sector, instead of being a tax-sucker.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435964</id>
	<title>Welcome to the government</title>
	<author>clesters</author>
	<datestamp>1260787680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be new around here... Almost everything we do is worthless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new around here... Almost everything we do is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new around here... Almost everything we do is worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437480</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260794820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd prefer to be one of the snack-food czars. Maybe the potato chips, or pizza czar. As long as it pays well, or I get a lot of free snacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd prefer to be one of the snack-food czars .
Maybe the potato chips , or pizza czar .
As long as it pays well , or I get a lot of free snacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd prefer to be one of the snack-food czars.
Maybe the potato chips, or pizza czar.
As long as it pays well, or I get a lot of free snacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435390</id>
	<title>For That Matter, So Is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Tiger Woods coverage. Tiger Woods should demand a<br>large incentive from the P.G.A. to appear in his next game.</p><p>That will teach the U.S. about "Family Values".</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Tiger Woods coverage .
Tiger Woods should demand alarge incentive from the P.G.A .
to appear in his next game.That will teach the U.S. about " Family Values " .Yours In Minsk,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Tiger Woods coverage.
Tiger Woods should demand alarge incentive from the P.G.A.
to appear in his next game.That will teach the U.S. about "Family Values".Yours In Minsk,Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30442826</id>
	<title>The position type is better known as</title>
	<author>chazd1</author>
	<datestamp>1260884940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an "organizational attenuator". </p><p>Someone has to dampen energy that might elsewise get into the mechanisms that matter to the the alphas. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an " organizational attenuator " .
Someone has to dampen energy that might elsewise get into the mechanisms that matter to the the alphas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an "organizational attenuator".
Someone has to dampen energy that might elsewise get into the mechanisms that matter to the the alphas. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436790</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1260791700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your beliefs were right, they just don't exist in reality.</p><p>I still hold forth that a free (libertarian) society provides the best opportunity for all people.<br>Every other system has some ruling class that gets to sit on its laurels.</p><p>That said, we do not live in a free society.<br>Wall-street is not the free market.<br>The healthcare system is not free market.<br>Transit is not the free market.<br>Government is not the free market.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>So yeah, if you want a job, you either have to go into a free market part of the economy (high tech, engineering, home contracting...).  An increasingly rare part of the economy.</p><p>Or, play the game that gets you into a non-productive protected job in one of the non-free market fields.</p><p>If you want a good life, my suggestion is to give up your ideals, and join the maifa (government public sector, health care, wall street... ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your beliefs were right , they just do n't exist in reality.I still hold forth that a free ( libertarian ) society provides the best opportunity for all people.Every other system has some ruling class that gets to sit on its laurels.That said , we do not live in a free society.Wall-street is not the free market.The healthcare system is not free market.Transit is not the free market.Government is not the free market .
... ...So yeah , if you want a job , you either have to go into a free market part of the economy ( high tech , engineering , home contracting... ) .
An increasingly rare part of the economy.Or , play the game that gets you into a non-productive protected job in one of the non-free market fields.If you want a good life , my suggestion is to give up your ideals , and join the maifa ( government public sector , health care , wall street... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your beliefs were right, they just don't exist in reality.I still hold forth that a free (libertarian) society provides the best opportunity for all people.Every other system has some ruling class that gets to sit on its laurels.That said, we do not live in a free society.Wall-street is not the free market.The healthcare system is not free market.Transit is not the free market.Government is not the free market.
... ...So yeah, if you want a job, you either have to go into a free market part of the economy (high tech, engineering, home contracting...).
An increasingly rare part of the economy.Or, play the game that gets you into a non-productive protected job in one of the non-free market fields.If you want a good life, my suggestion is to give up your ideals, and join the maifa (government public sector, health care, wall street... ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436172</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1260788520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want any authority over me, then damn right it's my business. We have every right to know if you are abiding by the same rules you expect us to. Don't take it personally. I expect all people in a position of authority to give up their private lives, at least to the extent that we have to. Besides, government <i>service</i> is supposed to be exactly that, not a lifetime career position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want any authority over me , then damn right it 's my business .
We have every right to know if you are abiding by the same rules you expect us to .
Do n't take it personally .
I expect all people in a position of authority to give up their private lives , at least to the extent that we have to .
Besides , government service is supposed to be exactly that , not a lifetime career position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want any authority over me, then damn right it's my business.
We have every right to know if you are abiding by the same rules you expect us to.
Don't take it personally.
I expect all people in a position of authority to give up their private lives, at least to the extent that we have to.
Besides, government service is supposed to be exactly that, not a lifetime career position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436892</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1260792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on...</p></div><p>This is what disqualified me when I applied.  I told them I sometimes used "Anonymous Coward" on slashdot.org...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Among other things they want to know every single handle that you 've ever used online , every single website that you 've posted on...This is what disqualified me when I applied .
I told them I sometimes used " Anonymous Coward " on slashdot.org.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on...This is what disqualified me when I applied.
I told them I sometimes used "Anonymous Coward" on slashdot.org...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435768</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260786780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is another way -- you have to provide a service (or product) people want at a price that helps other people.  The problem with being a bullshitting parasite is if you are one, you are incompetent.  A company that gets filled with these types of people in the end will be filled with people who are incompetent. As a result, you will not be able to provide as good a service as other people.<br> <br>
Sure, it is true the banks managed to get their bailout through lucky lobbying, but unless they change what they are doing, they will fail again, and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/03/18/volcker-feds-extreme-intervention-raises-some-real-questions/" title="wsj.com">smart people are already working</a> [wsj.com] on ways to make sure they don't get bailed out another time.  In the moment, it was easy for them to raise panic and get what they wanted, and smart people were willing to accept it even though it looked kind of shady, because smart people usually wait until they have the evidence before drawing conclusions.  Now all the evidence is clear that the bailouts weren't necessary, that there were other ways to deal with the problem, and the next time it comes up it will be harder for the bankers to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians (frankly it wasn't easy this time: they had to try to pass tarp twice and barely did it the second time, mainly based on fear).<br> <br>
In the end, progress depends on the competent, not the leaches. If the leaches outnumber the competent, the country will fail.  Invent something great and you will do fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another way -- you have to provide a service ( or product ) people want at a price that helps other people .
The problem with being a bullshitting parasite is if you are one , you are incompetent .
A company that gets filled with these types of people in the end will be filled with people who are incompetent .
As a result , you will not be able to provide as good a service as other people .
Sure , it is true the banks managed to get their bailout through lucky lobbying , but unless they change what they are doing , they will fail again , and smart people are already working [ wsj.com ] on ways to make sure they do n't get bailed out another time .
In the moment , it was easy for them to raise panic and get what they wanted , and smart people were willing to accept it even though it looked kind of shady , because smart people usually wait until they have the evidence before drawing conclusions .
Now all the evidence is clear that the bailouts were n't necessary , that there were other ways to deal with the problem , and the next time it comes up it will be harder for the bankers to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians ( frankly it was n't easy this time : they had to try to pass tarp twice and barely did it the second time , mainly based on fear ) .
In the end , progress depends on the competent , not the leaches .
If the leaches outnumber the competent , the country will fail .
Invent something great and you will do fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another way -- you have to provide a service (or product) people want at a price that helps other people.
The problem with being a bullshitting parasite is if you are one, you are incompetent.
A company that gets filled with these types of people in the end will be filled with people who are incompetent.
As a result, you will not be able to provide as good a service as other people.
Sure, it is true the banks managed to get their bailout through lucky lobbying, but unless they change what they are doing, they will fail again, and smart people are already working [wsj.com] on ways to make sure they don't get bailed out another time.
In the moment, it was easy for them to raise panic and get what they wanted, and smart people were willing to accept it even though it looked kind of shady, because smart people usually wait until they have the evidence before drawing conclusions.
Now all the evidence is clear that the bailouts weren't necessary, that there were other ways to deal with the problem, and the next time it comes up it will be harder for the bankers to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians (frankly it wasn't easy this time: they had to try to pass tarp twice and barely did it the second time, mainly based on fear).
In the end, progress depends on the competent, not the leaches.
If the leaches outnumber the competent, the country will fail.
Invent something great and you will do fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435744</id>
	<title>New Military Branch Needed.</title>
	<author>dikdik</author>
	<datestamp>1260786720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't need a "czar", we need a new military branch. I am not aware of ANY real and lasting contribution any "czar" has ever made in the United States. The first drug czars came close... if you call that a contribution, but from everything I've seen, they're basically PR and cheerleaders, and don't have much authority or get much done.
<p>
If we're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting. We don't need to start this in a big way, but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states. These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it's talent on developing high level techniques. This is what we'd do if we got really serious.
</p><p>
In my view, the position of czar is a joke. Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need a " czar " , we need a new military branch .
I am not aware of ANY real and lasting contribution any " czar " has ever made in the United States .
The first drug czars came close... if you call that a contribution , but from everything I 've seen , they 're basically PR and cheerleaders , and do n't have much authority or get much done .
If we 're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting .
We do n't need to start this in a big way , but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states .
These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it 's talent on developing high level techniques .
This is what we 'd do if we got really serious .
In my view , the position of czar is a joke .
Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need a "czar", we need a new military branch.
I am not aware of ANY real and lasting contribution any "czar" has ever made in the United States.
The first drug czars came close... if you call that a contribution, but from everything I've seen, they're basically PR and cheerleaders, and don't have much authority or get much done.
If we're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting.
We don't need to start this in a big way, but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states.
These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it's talent on developing high level techniques.
This is what we'd do if we got really serious.
In my view, the position of czar is a joke.
Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436248</id>
	<title>Re:Spoken like a true CEO</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1260788880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice.</p></div><p>I suspect only the first part of that statement is really true, which is why this isn't a good job for those who want to actually solve the problems, not just pontificate on how one could solve the problems.  I say this because:</p><p>1. Fundamentally cyber is not a Presidential priority at this time.  Jobs, health care, global warming, education - those are the things the President will be judged on, and thus what he is going to prioritize.  Your advice will likely be heard, but it is unlikely the power of the presidency will be used to fight for the difficult decisions you will ask for.  The political capital is simply needed elsewhere.</p><p>2. Because you don't get massive government bureaucracies to change course easily.  You certainly don't get it to happen if you can't control anyone's budget allocations and lack any statutory authority over those involved. If your recommendations are inconvenient (say they involve contested turf between two agencies) the bureaucracies involved can just stall until you're gone.  Yet an appropriate response to cyber requires close coordination among those very agencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice.I suspect only the first part of that statement is really true , which is why this is n't a good job for those who want to actually solve the problems , not just pontificate on how one could solve the problems .
I say this because : 1 .
Fundamentally cyber is not a Presidential priority at this time .
Jobs , health care , global warming , education - those are the things the President will be judged on , and thus what he is going to prioritize .
Your advice will likely be heard , but it is unlikely the power of the presidency will be used to fight for the difficult decisions you will ask for .
The political capital is simply needed elsewhere.2 .
Because you do n't get massive government bureaucracies to change course easily .
You certainly do n't get it to happen if you ca n't control anyone 's budget allocations and lack any statutory authority over those involved .
If your recommendations are inconvenient ( say they involve contested turf between two agencies ) the bureaucracies involved can just stall until you 're gone .
Yet an appropriate response to cyber requires close coordination among those very agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice.I suspect only the first part of that statement is really true, which is why this isn't a good job for those who want to actually solve the problems, not just pontificate on how one could solve the problems.
I say this because:1.
Fundamentally cyber is not a Presidential priority at this time.
Jobs, health care, global warming, education - those are the things the President will be judged on, and thus what he is going to prioritize.
Your advice will likely be heard, but it is unlikely the power of the presidency will be used to fight for the difficult decisions you will ask for.
The political capital is simply needed elsewhere.2.
Because you don't get massive government bureaucracies to change course easily.
You certainly don't get it to happen if you can't control anyone's budget allocations and lack any statutory authority over those involved.
If your recommendations are inconvenient (say they involve contested turf between two agencies) the bureaucracies involved can just stall until you're gone.
Yet an appropriate response to cyber requires close coordination among those very agencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435326</id>
	<title>This position</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>..won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. But it WILL have FarmVille.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..wo n't have any statutory authority .
It wo n't have any budgetary authority .
But it WILL have FarmVille .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..won't have any statutory authority.
It won't have any budgetary authority.
But it WILL have FarmVille.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436438</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1260789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a world where it's cheat or be cheated, it's hard to choose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a world where it 's cheat or be cheated , it 's hard to choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a world where it's cheat or be cheated, it's hard to choose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436522</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1260790020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts</p></div><p>Free markets tend to lead towards capitalism, but it is not the same thing as capitalism. Those banks that received bailouts are still making capital investments and are able to make their living doing nothing but investing. <i>That</i> is the definition of capitalism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism , via the bank bailoutsFree markets tend to lead towards capitalism , but it is not the same thing as capitalism .
Those banks that received bailouts are still making capital investments and are able to make their living doing nothing but investing .
That is the definition of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailoutsFree markets tend to lead towards capitalism, but it is not the same thing as capitalism.
Those banks that received bailouts are still making capital investments and are able to make their living doing nothing but investing.
That is the definition of capitalism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436036</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?</p><p>It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.</p><p>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.  Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts...  I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.  I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.</p></div><p>What you want is a manufacturing job of some sort.  A job where you can actually point at an object and say <i>I made that</i>.</p><p>Service sort of works for this as well...  Except that it's very easy to wind up in a service position where your customers are blaming you anyway.  Manufacturing generally results in an object that either does what it is supposed to, or doesn't - and there isn't typically a whole lot of room for shifting blame.</p><p>Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you get a factory job - though there's nothing wrong with that.  But working in construction, or carpentry, or producing some kind of art, or music, or putting on some kind of show can deliver similar results.</p><p>The basic idea, ultimately, is a job where you can actually point at an object that was either produced or not.  Or point at a person who was either served or not.  Instead of a job where your duties solely involve making decisions - which can ultimately be questioned or blamed by anyone, regardless of how things turned out, because it could possibly have turned out even better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else ( unemployed and looking like me ) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions ' ? It 's probably paranoia , but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit , and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.In my youth , I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types .
Now that I 've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism , via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters , or poor blame taking saps .
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs , and survive and get fed until we see a better age.What you want is a manufacturing job of some sort .
A job where you can actually point at an object and say I made that.Service sort of works for this as well... Except that it 's very easy to wind up in a service position where your customers are blaming you anyway .
Manufacturing generally results in an object that either does what it is supposed to , or does n't - and there is n't typically a whole lot of room for shifting blame.Now , I 'm not necessarily suggesting that you get a factory job - though there 's nothing wrong with that .
But working in construction , or carpentry , or producing some kind of art , or music , or putting on some kind of show can deliver similar results.The basic idea , ultimately , is a job where you can actually point at an object that was either produced or not .
Or point at a person who was either served or not .
Instead of a job where your duties solely involve making decisions - which can ultimately be questioned or blamed by anyone , regardless of how things turned out , because it could possibly have turned out even better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.
Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts...  I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.What you want is a manufacturing job of some sort.
A job where you can actually point at an object and say I made that.Service sort of works for this as well...  Except that it's very easy to wind up in a service position where your customers are blaming you anyway.
Manufacturing generally results in an object that either does what it is supposed to, or doesn't - and there isn't typically a whole lot of room for shifting blame.Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you get a factory job - though there's nothing wrong with that.
But working in construction, or carpentry, or producing some kind of art, or music, or putting on some kind of show can deliver similar results.The basic idea, ultimately, is a job where you can actually point at an object that was either produced or not.
Or point at a person who was either served or not.
Instead of a job where your duties solely involve making decisions - which can ultimately be questioned or blamed by anyone, regardless of how things turned out, because it could possibly have turned out even better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30443326</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1260888840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Or point at a person who was either served or not."</p><p>Whores: keeping the American Dream alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or point at a person who was either served or not .
" Whores : keeping the American Dream alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or point at a person who was either served or not.
"Whores: keeping the American Dream alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358</id>
	<title>Well how about that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."</i> <p>Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.</p><p>I can do that! Were can I get a job like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That position is a blame-taking position, ' Spafford said .
" Someone who 's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that !
Were can I get a job like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said.
" Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that!
Were can I get a job like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436320</id>
	<title>Re:Spoken like a true CEO</title>
	<author>Xaositecte</author>
	<datestamp>1260789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not too familiar with what a "Blame taking job" really is, are you?</p><p>This is basically a rehash of the old "intelligence Czar" fiasco.  The position was supposed to bring all the various intelligence agencies in America together to prevent another intelligence failure like 9/11, but since the Czar didn't have any statutotry or budgetary authority, his decisions and recommendations could simply be ignored by anyone beneath him.</p><p>Since the various intelligence agencies would have already taken any advice the Czar could give them if they were going to do it willingly, they [i]surprise[/i], didn't follow his advice!</p><p>In the end, it creates a position that is completely impotent, but since they were [i]supposed[/i] to be correcting all the problems in the system, if any more big catastrophes happen, there's a person to easily blame.  They can even pick and choose, "Look, we followed this and this and this piece of advice you gave us, and it didn't help at ALL" - Ignoring the mountains of advice or commands that weren't followed.</p><p>The reason everyone already realizes this is, frankly, because this is a repeat of what already happened five years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not too familiar with what a " Blame taking job " really is , are you ? This is basically a rehash of the old " intelligence Czar " fiasco .
The position was supposed to bring all the various intelligence agencies in America together to prevent another intelligence failure like 9/11 , but since the Czar did n't have any statutotry or budgetary authority , his decisions and recommendations could simply be ignored by anyone beneath him.Since the various intelligence agencies would have already taken any advice the Czar could give them if they were going to do it willingly , they [ i ] surprise [ /i ] , did n't follow his advice ! In the end , it creates a position that is completely impotent , but since they were [ i ] supposed [ /i ] to be correcting all the problems in the system , if any more big catastrophes happen , there 's a person to easily blame .
They can even pick and choose , " Look , we followed this and this and this piece of advice you gave us , and it did n't help at ALL " - Ignoring the mountains of advice or commands that were n't followed.The reason everyone already realizes this is , frankly , because this is a repeat of what already happened five years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not too familiar with what a "Blame taking job" really is, are you?This is basically a rehash of the old "intelligence Czar" fiasco.
The position was supposed to bring all the various intelligence agencies in America together to prevent another intelligence failure like 9/11, but since the Czar didn't have any statutotry or budgetary authority, his decisions and recommendations could simply be ignored by anyone beneath him.Since the various intelligence agencies would have already taken any advice the Czar could give them if they were going to do it willingly, they [i]surprise[/i], didn't follow his advice!In the end, it creates a position that is completely impotent, but since they were [i]supposed[/i] to be correcting all the problems in the system, if any more big catastrophes happen, there's a person to easily blame.
They can even pick and choose, "Look, we followed this and this and this piece of advice you gave us, and it didn't help at ALL" - Ignoring the mountains of advice or commands that weren't followed.The reason everyone already realizes this is, frankly, because this is a repeat of what already happened five years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435620</id>
	<title>I'll take it</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1260785940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My coworkers are always volunteering me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm (modestly) that good!
<br> <br>
Here's a photo of me on the job: <a href="http://www.frogview.com/uploadimages/45f9f6b1c0ed04.86765571frogview-gallery.jpg" title="frogview.com">http://www.frogview.com/uploadimages/45f9f6b1c0ed04.86765571frogview-gallery.jpg</a> [frogview.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>My coworkers are always volunteering me ... I 'm ( modestly ) that good !
Here 's a photo of me on the job : http : //www.frogview.com/uploadimages/45f9f6b1c0ed04.86765571frogview-gallery.jpg [ frogview.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My coworkers are always volunteering me ... I'm (modestly) that good!
Here's a photo of me on the job: http://www.frogview.com/uploadimages/45f9f6b1c0ed04.86765571frogview-gallery.jpg [frogview.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30438868</id>
	<title>Spafford Is Useless, Says Cybersecurity Czar</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1260801420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and many others, come to think of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and many others , come to think of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and many others, come to think of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435992</id>
	<title>Useless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By my calculation there is a major difference between the position being "useless," meaning not necessary, and it being a position of relatively little glamor. Just because the position will likely take a lot of crap doesn't mean it's not a possibly important part of the puzzle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By my calculation there is a major difference between the position being " useless , " meaning not necessary , and it being a position of relatively little glamor .
Just because the position will likely take a lot of crap does n't mean it 's not a possibly important part of the puzzle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By my calculation there is a major difference between the position being "useless," meaning not necessary, and it being a position of relatively little glamor.
Just because the position will likely take a lot of crap doesn't mean it's not a possibly important part of the puzzle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437742</id>
	<title>Invent something great and you will do fine.</title>
	<author>jeko</author>
	<datestamp>1260795960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to Philo Farnsworth. You forgot a step.</p><p>"Invent something great," have a few million on hand to defend your patent, "and you will do fine."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to Philo Farnsworth .
You forgot a step .
" Invent something great , " have a few million on hand to defend your patent , " and you will do fine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to Philo Farnsworth.
You forgot a step.
"Invent something great," have a few million on hand to defend your patent, "and you will do fine.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435292</id>
	<title>Recession</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1260784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take it.  I've even worked
in security, although as a programmer not
as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer
(e.g., Bruce Schneier) which is what I imagine they want
and will never get.</p><p>Where do I send my resum&#233;?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take it .
I 've even worked in security , although as a programmer not as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer ( e.g. , Bruce Schneier ) which is what I imagine they want and will never get.Where do I send my resum   ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take it.
I've even worked
in security, although as a programmer not
as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer
(e.g., Bruce Schneier) which is what I imagine they want
and will never get.Where do I send my resumé?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435634</id>
	<title>Pick me! Pick me!</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1260786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could be my chance to move out of my mom's basement!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be my chance to move out of my mom 's basement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be my chance to move out of my mom's basement!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435946</id>
	<title>Re:Recession</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260787620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll take it.  I've even worked
in security, although as a programmer not
as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer
(e.g., Bruce Schneier)</p></div><p>That's okay. As far as I know, few highly respected authors and lecturers have been asked. And asked or not, several such people have preemptively refused the, er, honor. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>which is what I imagine they want
and will never get.</p></div><p>If they wanted, I imagine they would've asked more people who could do it. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Where do I send my resum&#233;?</p></div><p>First print off a copy of everything you've ever said online and send it so they can check it for anything embarrassing. I gather that's what one of their pre-screening requirements was. Which is to say, they want people who have <i>never used the internet</i> for their security czar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take it .
I 've even worked in security , although as a programmer not as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer ( e.g. , Bruce Schneier ) That 's okay .
As far as I know , few highly respected authors and lecturers have been asked .
And asked or not , several such people have preemptively refused the , er , honor .
which is what I imagine they want and will never get.If they wanted , I imagine they would 've asked more people who could do it .
Where do I send my resum   ? First print off a copy of everything you 've ever said online and send it so they can check it for anything embarrassing .
I gather that 's what one of their pre-screening requirements was .
Which is to say , they want people who have never used the internet for their security czar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take it.
I've even worked
in security, although as a programmer not
as an executive or highly respected author and lecturer
(e.g., Bruce Schneier)That's okay.
As far as I know, few highly respected authors and lecturers have been asked.
And asked or not, several such people have preemptively refused the, er, honor.
which is what I imagine they want
and will never get.If they wanted, I imagine they would've asked more people who could do it.
Where do I send my resumé?First print off a copy of everything you've ever said online and send it so they can check it for anything embarrassing.
I gather that's what one of their pre-screening requirements was.
Which is to say, they want people who have never used the internet for their security czar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30438176</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be a political slimeball to be considered! Have impeccable resume; No practical IT skills! Willing to resign when required; Take one for the team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be a political slimeball to be considered !
Have impeccable resume ; No practical IT skills !
Willing to resign when required ; Take one for the team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be a political slimeball to be considered!
Have impeccable resume; No practical IT skills!
Willing to resign when required; Take one for the team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435922</id>
	<title>Re:Well how about that!</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1260787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."</i> </p><p>Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.</p><p>I can do that! Were can I get a job like that.</p></div><p>Seems like just about any IT position would qualify...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That position is a blame-taking position, ' Spafford said .
" Someone who 's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that !
Were can I get a job like that.Seems like just about any IT position would qualify.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said.
" Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that!
Were can I get a job like that.Seems like just about any IT position would qualify...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the draconian disclosure requirements imposed on people seeking to work for the administration have contributed to the difficulty in filling it?  I looked at some of what they wanted to know on their job application during the transition.  Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on, whether or not you own firearms, whether or not you've ever been involved in an automobile accident, what political advocacy organizations you belong to, etc, etc, etc.
</p><p>Now I understand the desire to protect the President from embarrassment (wouldn't want to wind up with a treasury secretary that can't properly compute his own taxes....) but it seems to me that they've gone a bit overboard.  I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me.  It's simply none of their business.  I'm sure many others feel the same way.  Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the draconian disclosure requirements imposed on people seeking to work for the administration have contributed to the difficulty in filling it ?
I looked at some of what they wanted to know on their job application during the transition .
Among other things they want to know every single handle that you 've ever used online , every single website that you 've posted on , whether or not you own firearms , whether or not you 've ever been involved in an automobile accident , what political advocacy organizations you belong to , etc , etc , etc .
Now I understand the desire to protect the President from embarrassment ( would n't want to wind up with a treasury secretary that ca n't properly compute his own taxes.... ) but it seems to me that they 've gone a bit overboard .
I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me .
It 's simply none of their business .
I 'm sure many others feel the same way .
Why put up with that bullshit , particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry ( as much ) about politics or being someone 's scapegoat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the draconian disclosure requirements imposed on people seeking to work for the administration have contributed to the difficulty in filling it?
I looked at some of what they wanted to know on their job application during the transition.
Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on, whether or not you own firearms, whether or not you've ever been involved in an automobile accident, what political advocacy organizations you belong to, etc, etc, etc.
Now I understand the desire to protect the President from embarrassment (wouldn't want to wind up with a treasury secretary that can't properly compute his own taxes....) but it seems to me that they've gone a bit overboard.
I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me.
It's simply none of their business.
I'm sure many others feel the same way.
Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435554</id>
	<title>Re:Well how about that!</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1260785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."</i> </p><p>Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.</p><p>I can do that! Were can I get a job like that.</p></div><p>Almost any computer/IT/network/[yourtermhere] security position in a Fortune 500 company would fit the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That position is a blame-taking position, ' Spafford said .
" Someone who 's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that !
Were can I get a job like that.Almost any computer/IT/network/ [ yourtermhere ] security position in a Fortune 500 company would fit the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said.
" Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.I can do that!
Were can I get a job like that.Almost any computer/IT/network/[yourtermhere] security position in a Fortune 500 company would fit the bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436984</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps. I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.</p></div><p>Out of curiosity, did those naive libertarian beliefs ever get invalidated? Or are you glum because the problem is a bit harder than you thought?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my youth , I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types .
Now that I 've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism , via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters , or poor blame taking saps .
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs , and survive and get fed until we see a better age.Out of curiosity , did those naive libertarian beliefs ever get invalidated ?
Or are you glum because the problem is a bit harder than you thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.
Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.Out of curiosity, did those naive libertarian beliefs ever get invalidated?
Or are you glum because the problem is a bit harder than you thought?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</id>
	<title>'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>jdogalt</author>
	<datestamp>1260785220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?</p><p>It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.</p><p>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.  Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts...  I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.  I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else ( unemployed and looking like me ) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions ' ? It 's probably paranoia , but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit , and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.In my youth , I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types .
Now that I 've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism , via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters , or poor blame taking saps .
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs , and survive and get fed until we see a better age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.
Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts...  I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.
I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436230</id>
	<title>di34</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260788820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 7ailure of</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 7ailure of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 7ailure of</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436010</id>
	<title>Czar logic</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if a drug czar tries to stop drugs, does a cybersecurity czar stop cybersecurity?<p>

But the drug czars have failed to stop drugs, so therefore a cybersecurity czar would improve cybersecurity!</p><p>

I finally understand government logic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if a drug czar tries to stop drugs , does a cybersecurity czar stop cybersecurity ?
But the drug czars have failed to stop drugs , so therefore a cybersecurity czar would improve cybersecurity !
I finally understand government logic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if a drug czar tries to stop drugs, does a cybersecurity czar stop cybersecurity?
But the drug czars have failed to stop drugs, so therefore a cybersecurity czar would improve cybersecurity!
I finally understand government logic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435898</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1260787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.</p></div><p>Oh, cheer up. It's nearly Christmas!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.</p></div><p>Maybe some universities will start offering that as a major.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my youth , I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types .
Now that I 've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism , via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters , or poor blame taking saps.Oh , cheer up .
It 's nearly Christmas !
: - ) I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs , and survive and get fed until we see a better age.Maybe some universities will start offering that as a major .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.
Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps.Oh, cheer up.
It's nearly Christmas!
:-)I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.Maybe some universities will start offering that as a major.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436000</id>
	<title>Re:'blame taking position' -- nailed it</title>
	<author>Xaositecte</author>
	<datestamp>1260787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's plenty well possible to [i]make a living[/i] without being a corrupt businessperson who feasts upon the lives and souls of the working class, it's just extremely difficult to become immensely financially successful.</p><p>The trick, then, is to be happy with a comfortable lifestyle.  Make enough money to ensure you and your family have a good life, make some smart choices with your savings, and be lucky enough to not work for a company that steals everything from you when it fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's plenty well possible to [ i ] make a living [ /i ] without being a corrupt businessperson who feasts upon the lives and souls of the working class , it 's just extremely difficult to become immensely financially successful.The trick , then , is to be happy with a comfortable lifestyle .
Make enough money to ensure you and your family have a good life , make some smart choices with your savings , and be lucky enough to not work for a company that steals everything from you when it fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's plenty well possible to [i]make a living[/i] without being a corrupt businessperson who feasts upon the lives and souls of the working class, it's just extremely difficult to become immensely financially successful.The trick, then, is to be happy with a comfortable lifestyle.
Make enough money to ensure you and your family have a good life, make some smart choices with your savings, and be lucky enough to not work for a company that steals everything from you when it fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30439738</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1260806760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me. It's simply none of their business. I'm sure many others feel the same way.</i> <br>
<br>
Then I guess the application wasn't for you or people like you.  You realise there are plenty of others who would take such a job, including all the intrustions, for the power or prestige or simply as a damn impressive thing they could put on their resumes? <br>
<br>
I do agree it is somewhat ironic that they are asking for a "cybersecurity" position, since people with knowledge in the world of information security tend to be pretty zealous about not revealing too much about themselves online.
<br> <br>
Nevertheless, there will always be qualified people who feel their online presence is no big deal, and would love such a job.  And I should point out that those all sound like things that would  be perfectly normal to investigate for anyone trying to get a job so high up in the executive branch.  Hell, even much lower-ranking clearance requires all kinds of invasive background checks.
<br> <br>
<i>Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?</i> <br>
<br>
Again: power, prestige, networking, and credentials.  You could hum away working your way up the corporate ladder doing infosec, and probably do quite well, but being able to say that you were in charge of IT security for the federal government might be quite appealing to some.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me .
It 's simply none of their business .
I 'm sure many others feel the same way .
Then I guess the application was n't for you or people like you .
You realise there are plenty of others who would take such a job , including all the intrustions , for the power or prestige or simply as a damn impressive thing they could put on their resumes ?
I do agree it is somewhat ironic that they are asking for a " cybersecurity " position , since people with knowledge in the world of information security tend to be pretty zealous about not revealing too much about themselves online .
Nevertheless , there will always be qualified people who feel their online presence is no big deal , and would love such a job .
And I should point out that those all sound like things that would be perfectly normal to investigate for anyone trying to get a job so high up in the executive branch .
Hell , even much lower-ranking clearance requires all kinds of invasive background checks .
Why put up with that bullshit , particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry ( as much ) about politics or being someone 's scapegoat ?
Again : power , prestige , networking , and credentials .
You could hum away working your way up the corporate ladder doing infosec , and probably do quite well , but being able to say that you were in charge of IT security for the federal government might be quite appealing to some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me.
It's simply none of their business.
I'm sure many others feel the same way.
Then I guess the application wasn't for you or people like you.
You realise there are plenty of others who would take such a job, including all the intrustions, for the power or prestige or simply as a damn impressive thing they could put on their resumes?
I do agree it is somewhat ironic that they are asking for a "cybersecurity" position, since people with knowledge in the world of information security tend to be pretty zealous about not revealing too much about themselves online.
Nevertheless, there will always be qualified people who feel their online presence is no big deal, and would love such a job.
And I should point out that those all sound like things that would  be perfectly normal to investigate for anyone trying to get a job so high up in the executive branch.
Hell, even much lower-ranking clearance requires all kinds of invasive background checks.
Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?
Again: power, prestige, networking, and credentials.
You could hum away working your way up the corporate ladder doing infosec, and probably do quite well, but being able to say that you were in charge of IT security for the federal government might be quite appealing to some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640</id>
	<title>Spoken like a true CEO</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1260786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The assertion that this is a 'blame taking' job is unfounded, that it doesn't have statutory or budget authority is peripheral to what the role should be, and frankly somewhat insulting that the umbrage taken with it by 'the experts' is that it's a role that has no teeth.</p><p>It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice. Boo hoo you don't have any authority or a budget. Any consultant that is hired on to a tech firm is in the same boat.</p><p>Also, yeah, I can understand why many security people have turned this job down. Because they're more interested in money than civil service -- how the hell is that a surprise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The assertion that this is a 'blame taking ' job is unfounded , that it does n't have statutory or budget authority is peripheral to what the role should be , and frankly somewhat insulting that the umbrage taken with it by 'the experts ' is that it 's a role that has no teeth.It 's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice .
Boo hoo you do n't have any authority or a budget .
Any consultant that is hired on to a tech firm is in the same boat.Also , yeah , I can understand why many security people have turned this job down .
Because they 're more interested in money than civil service -- how the hell is that a surprise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The assertion that this is a 'blame taking' job is unfounded, that it doesn't have statutory or budget authority is peripheral to what the role should be, and frankly somewhat insulting that the umbrage taken with it by 'the experts' is that it's a role that has no teeth.It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice.
Boo hoo you don't have any authority or a budget.
Any consultant that is hired on to a tech firm is in the same boat.Also, yeah, I can understand why many security people have turned this job down.
Because they're more interested in money than civil service -- how the hell is that a surprise?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437816</id>
	<title>I don't hate to say it...</title>
	<author>LoadWB</author>
	<datestamp>1260796260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But a lot of us saw this a mile and a-half away.  There are a lot of people involved close-up with POTUS' CyberSecurity initiative, and I had the honor of meeting one of the top brass in October.  As excited as the people on the advisement staff seem or seemed to be, I could not shake the perception of trepidation in the voice and comments of the presenter.  I even queried him about the "CyberSecurity Czar" (or "Director," as it is preferred to be called) and received a fairly vague answer with little notion of what will really happen.</p><p>All for show, in my estimation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a lot of us saw this a mile and a-half away .
There are a lot of people involved close-up with POTUS ' CyberSecurity initiative , and I had the honor of meeting one of the top brass in October .
As excited as the people on the advisement staff seem or seemed to be , I could not shake the perception of trepidation in the voice and comments of the presenter .
I even queried him about the " CyberSecurity Czar " ( or " Director , " as it is preferred to be called ) and received a fairly vague answer with little notion of what will really happen.All for show , in my estimation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a lot of us saw this a mile and a-half away.
There are a lot of people involved close-up with POTUS' CyberSecurity initiative, and I had the honor of meeting one of the top brass in October.
As excited as the people on the advisement staff seem or seemed to be, I could not shake the perception of trepidation in the voice and comments of the presenter.
I even queried him about the "CyberSecurity Czar" (or "Director," as it is preferred to be called) and received a fairly vague answer with little notion of what will really happen.All for show, in my estimation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435466</id>
	<title>Hey, being a fall guy isn't always so bad</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1260785220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Ridge" title="wikipedia.org">Tom Ridge</a> [wikipedia.org] was nothing but the designated fall guy at the Dept. of Homeland Security, but he managed to parlay it into a book deal and a ton of great press. Not bad for a guy who had formerly been an almost completely unknown governor of a minor state. You think anyone would have given a rat's ass about his memoirs if he had turned that job down?
</p><p>If you can be a fall guy who manages to get out BEFORE the fall, there is real money and fame in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tom Ridge [ wikipedia.org ] was nothing but the designated fall guy at the Dept .
of Homeland Security , but he managed to parlay it into a book deal and a ton of great press .
Not bad for a guy who had formerly been an almost completely unknown governor of a minor state .
You think anyone would have given a rat 's ass about his memoirs if he had turned that job down ?
If you can be a fall guy who manages to get out BEFORE the fall , there is real money and fame in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Tom Ridge [wikipedia.org] was nothing but the designated fall guy at the Dept.
of Homeland Security, but he managed to parlay it into a book deal and a ton of great press.
Not bad for a guy who had formerly been an almost completely unknown governor of a minor state.
You think anyone would have given a rat's ass about his memoirs if he had turned that job down?
If you can be a fall guy who manages to get out BEFORE the fall, there is real money and fame in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435308</id>
	<title>Who watches the Internet</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1260784320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure a tzar helps. The people on the front line are independant businesses selling cyber security and the military. The two do not meet openly so the position is merely cerimonial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure a tzar helps .
The people on the front line are independant businesses selling cyber security and the military .
The two do not meet openly so the position is merely cerimonial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure a tzar helps.
The people on the front line are independant businesses selling cyber security and the military.
The two do not meet openly so the position is merely cerimonial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436798</id>
	<title>Not to politicians, it isnt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arent all these positions created to put the supporters in to positions of power so that you can pay back for helping you get elected.  Most of these top level positions are useless, except for political purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arent all these positions created to put the supporters in to positions of power so that you can pay back for helping you get elected .
Most of these top level positions are useless , except for political purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arent all these positions created to put the supporters in to positions of power so that you can pay back for helping you get elected.
Most of these top level positions are useless, except for political purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436266</id>
	<title>Re:Spoken like a true CEO</title>
	<author>SlipperHat</author>
	<datestamp>1260788940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a rebuttal, when was the last time a "czar" position appeared with no statutory or budget authority attached?</p><p>However, the idea of a Cybersecurity Czar seems ineffective to begin with (remember DHS). A Cybersecurity Committee with mandatory quarterly/biannual face-to-face meetings with the POTUS seems more useful. The committee can concentrate on giving status updates and a high-level cost-benefit analysis that the POTUS could understand, while the POTUS would simply decide for or against.</p><p>It'd be cheaper (no separate department + overhead), the security folks can concentrate on their area of expertise instead of the politics, and the POTUS would have one less adviser breathing down his neck. It might suffer from design-by-committee flaws, but security people seem more apt to play nice with each other (at least from my 5000 mile view).</p><p>(It makes too much sense to ever exist)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a rebuttal , when was the last time a " czar " position appeared with no statutory or budget authority attached ? However , the idea of a Cybersecurity Czar seems ineffective to begin with ( remember DHS ) .
A Cybersecurity Committee with mandatory quarterly/biannual face-to-face meetings with the POTUS seems more useful .
The committee can concentrate on giving status updates and a high-level cost-benefit analysis that the POTUS could understand , while the POTUS would simply decide for or against.It 'd be cheaper ( no separate department + overhead ) , the security folks can concentrate on their area of expertise instead of the politics , and the POTUS would have one less adviser breathing down his neck .
It might suffer from design-by-committee flaws , but security people seem more apt to play nice with each other ( at least from my 5000 mile view ) .
( It makes too much sense to ever exist )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a rebuttal, when was the last time a "czar" position appeared with no statutory or budget authority attached?However, the idea of a Cybersecurity Czar seems ineffective to begin with (remember DHS).
A Cybersecurity Committee with mandatory quarterly/biannual face-to-face meetings with the POTUS seems more useful.
The committee can concentrate on giving status updates and a high-level cost-benefit analysis that the POTUS could understand, while the POTUS would simply decide for or against.It'd be cheaper (no separate department + overhead), the security folks can concentrate on their area of expertise instead of the politics, and the POTUS would have one less adviser breathing down his neck.
It might suffer from design-by-committee flaws, but security people seem more apt to play nice with each other (at least from my 5000 mile view).
(It makes too much sense to ever exist)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435344</id>
	<title>Bruce Schneier agrees</title>
	<author>surmak</author>
	<datestamp>1260784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>See his <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/obamas\_cybersec\_1.html" title="schneier.com">blog post</a> [schneier.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>See his blog post [ schneier.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See his blog post [schneier.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435392</id>
	<title>Puppet</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1260784740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A real security czar would be the man or woman behind the curtain.
With a limp, a raspy voice, and insist that they are always watching us watching them watch other people who watch Ebay watching people selling watches trying to find the best watch to buy. Even when the security czar knows that everyone just uses cell phones now instead of watches. Thats why he must watch the watch watchers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A real security czar would be the man or woman behind the curtain .
With a limp , a raspy voice , and insist that they are always watching us watching them watch other people who watch Ebay watching people selling watches trying to find the best watch to buy .
Even when the security czar knows that everyone just uses cell phones now instead of watches .
Thats why he must watch the watch watchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A real security czar would be the man or woman behind the curtain.
With a limp, a raspy voice, and insist that they are always watching us watching them watch other people who watch Ebay watching people selling watches trying to find the best watch to buy.
Even when the security czar knows that everyone just uses cell phones now instead of watches.
Thats why he must watch the watch watchers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256</id>
	<title>I vote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260784020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for me?  It has Czar in the title, it has to pay more than what I make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for me ?
It has Czar in the title , it has to pay more than what I make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for me?
It has Czar in the title, it has to pay more than what I make.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436802</id>
	<title>"Pay your taxes" is NOT draconian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, look who's been confirmed.</p><p>An Attorney General who thinks it's <a href="http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/BriefforFormerDOJOfficialsasAmiciCuriae.pdf" title="gurapossessky.com" rel="nofollow">OK to pick a fundamental Constitutional right and strip it from individuals</a> [gurapossessky.com].</p><p>A <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">tax cheat in charge of the IRS</a> [wsj.com].</p><p>A <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-puts-new-cio-vivek-kundra-on-suspension-2009-3" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">CIO who was strangely the ONLY one in his entire department that wasn't corrupt</a> [businessinsider.com].</p><p>What "draconian disclosure requirements" are you referring to?  These are the guys who were <b>CONFIRMED</b> in office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , look who 's been confirmed.An Attorney General who thinks it 's OK to pick a fundamental Constitutional right and strip it from individuals [ gurapossessky.com ] .A tax cheat in charge of the IRS [ wsj.com ] .A CIO who was strangely the ONLY one in his entire department that was n't corrupt [ businessinsider.com ] .What " draconian disclosure requirements " are you referring to ?
These are the guys who were CONFIRMED in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, look who's been confirmed.An Attorney General who thinks it's OK to pick a fundamental Constitutional right and strip it from individuals [gurapossessky.com].A tax cheat in charge of the IRS [wsj.com].A CIO who was strangely the ONLY one in his entire department that wasn't corrupt [businessinsider.com].What "draconian disclosure requirements" are you referring to?
These are the guys who were CONFIRMED in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436620</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good - The last thing we need is for this or any similar position to have some real authority; it's likely only going to be a matter of time before anonymity and freedom online are ruined in the name of "security" anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good - The last thing we need is for this or any similar position to have some real authority ; it 's likely only going to be a matter of time before anonymity and freedom online are ruined in the name of " security " anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good - The last thing we need is for this or any similar position to have some real authority; it's likely only going to be a matter of time before anonymity and freedom online are ruined in the name of "security" anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30441380</id>
	<title>Re:I vote</title>
	<author>m1xram</author>
	<datestamp>1260910320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think the President cares about embarrassment? You've pointed out the tax cheat, who actually never completely paid all the money he owes, but what about...</p><ul>
<li>communists</li><li>lobbists</li><li>pro-terrorists</li><li>pro-child-porn</li></ul><p>He seems to appoint whomever he wants, sometimes in spite of FBI background checks. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think the President cares about embarrassment ?
You 've pointed out the tax cheat , who actually never completely paid all the money he owes , but what about.. . communistslobbistspro-terroristspro-child-pornHe seems to appoint whomever he wants , sometimes in spite of FBI background checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think the President cares about embarrassment?
You've pointed out the tax cheat, who actually never completely paid all the money he owes, but what about...
communistslobbistspro-terroristspro-child-pornHe seems to appoint whomever he wants, sometimes in spite of FBI background checks. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30438176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30441380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30439738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30443326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30447460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1934239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30439738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30441380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30447460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30438176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30443326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30437742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30436248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1934239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1934239.30435326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
