<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_0134259</id>
	<title>Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261573980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Comcast has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement.ars">settled out of court to the tune of $16 million</a> in one of several ongoing P2P throttling class action lawsuits. <a href="http://www.p2pcongestionsettlement.com/">You may be eligible</a> for up to $16 restitution if 'you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.' $16 million seems low. And it's too bad this was an out-of-court settlement instead of a solid precedent-setting decision for your right to use P2P applications. The settlement will probably not affect the <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/22/0448209/Comcast-Sued-Again-over-P2P-Throttling">slews of other Comcast P2P throttling suits</a>, and it's unclear whether it will <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/08/01/08/220246/FCC-To-investigate-Comcast-Bittorrent-Meddling">placate the FCC</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Comcast has settled out of court to the tune of $ 16 million in one of several ongoing P2P throttling class action lawsuits .
You may be eligible for up to $ 16 restitution if 'you live in the United States or its Territories , have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account , and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares , BitTorrent , eDonkey , FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1 , 2006 to December 31 , 2008 ; and/or Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26 , 2007 to October 3 , 2007 .
' $ 16 million seems low .
And it 's too bad this was an out-of-court settlement instead of a solid precedent-setting decision for your right to use P2P applications .
The settlement will probably not affect the slews of other Comcast P2P throttling suits , and it 's unclear whether it will placate the FCC .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Comcast has settled out of court to the tune of $16 million in one of several ongoing P2P throttling class action lawsuits.
You may be eligible for up to $16 restitution if 'you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.
' $16 million seems low.
And it's too bad this was an out-of-court settlement instead of a solid precedent-setting decision for your right to use P2P applications.
The settlement will probably not affect the slews of other Comcast P2P throttling suits, and it's unclear whether it will placate the FCC.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535022</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259768340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without specific lists of things you downloaded, the RIAA/MPAA can't do anything.  Methinks the paranoia is running a bit too rampant on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without specific lists of things you downloaded , the RIAA/MPAA ca n't do anything .
Methinks the paranoia is running a bit too rampant on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without specific lists of things you downloaded, the RIAA/MPAA can't do anything.
Methinks the paranoia is running a bit too rampant on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1259767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that, but it basically immunizes them against further lawsuits on the issue. Sometimes, I think some of these class action suits are the result of a collaboration between the companies and some lawyers. The lawyers get a big payday, the companies get immunity from anymore lawsuits, and the consumer gets screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but it basically immunizes them against further lawsuits on the issue .
Sometimes , I think some of these class action suits are the result of a collaboration between the companies and some lawyers .
The lawyers get a big payday , the companies get immunity from anymore lawsuits , and the consumer gets screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but it basically immunizes them against further lawsuits on the issue.
Sometimes, I think some of these class action suits are the result of a collaboration between the companies and some lawyers.
The lawyers get a big payday, the companies get immunity from anymore lawsuits, and the consumer gets screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538824</id>
	<title>Claim Applications not being accepted quite yet</title>
	<author>kenjay</author>
	<datestamp>1259748060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Claim Forms will be available after January 4, 2010"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Claim Forms will be available after January 4 , 2010 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Claim Forms will be available after January 4, 2010"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30543310</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1261664400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least there are multiple instances of this. "Class Action" lawsuits are a farcical way to protect a business by lumping all the suits, compatible or not, into one suit. If they had to handle 16 million law suits it may be unfair but it would tend to curb bad behavior.</p><p>In California in the 90s with electronic manufacturers were being sued by a large block of their warranty repair shops in that state. They barely lost class action status which then meant they had to handle ~400 civil cases individually. It was over proper compensation for work performed. I do not recall the outcome but it was a damned good ruling that gave a lot of clout to the individual warrant shops which are usually sole proprietor outfits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least there are multiple instances of this .
" Class Action " lawsuits are a farcical way to protect a business by lumping all the suits , compatible or not , into one suit .
If they had to handle 16 million law suits it may be unfair but it would tend to curb bad behavior.In California in the 90s with electronic manufacturers were being sued by a large block of their warranty repair shops in that state .
They barely lost class action status which then meant they had to handle ~ 400 civil cases individually .
It was over proper compensation for work performed .
I do not recall the outcome but it was a damned good ruling that gave a lot of clout to the individual warrant shops which are usually sole proprietor outfits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least there are multiple instances of this.
"Class Action" lawsuits are a farcical way to protect a business by lumping all the suits, compatible or not, into one suit.
If they had to handle 16 million law suits it may be unfair but it would tend to curb bad behavior.In California in the 90s with electronic manufacturers were being sued by a large block of their warranty repair shops in that state.
They barely lost class action status which then meant they had to handle ~400 civil cases individually.
It was over proper compensation for work performed.
I do not recall the outcome but it was a damned good ruling that gave a lot of clout to the individual warrant shops which are usually sole proprietor outfits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536810</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm..</title>
	<author>ImYourVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1259779080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Goddammit, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Goddammit , I 'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it 'd do any good !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Goddammit, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426</id>
	<title>Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>system1111</author>
	<datestamp>1259763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Got love how everyday people will get sued by corporations for many times their annual income ( $80,000 a song) but when it comes to corporations getting sued it equates to a far lower ratio. Any one else think its kind of silly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got love how everyday people will get sued by corporations for many times their annual income ( $ 80,000 a song ) but when it comes to corporations getting sued it equates to a far lower ratio .
Any one else think its kind of silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got love how everyday people will get sued by corporations for many times their annual income ( $80,000 a song) but when it comes to corporations getting sued it equates to a far lower ratio.
Any one else think its kind of silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538422</id>
	<title>Trial-court-level proceedings DO NOT SET PRECEDENT</title>
	<author>LonghornXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1259745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times will an inane Slashdot summary bitch about a case settling before trial because it "does not set precedent"?</p><p>The trial-court level does NOT set precedent.  The intermediate appeals court and the court of last resort are the courts that set precedent.</p><p>Examples:</p><p>Precedent = trial court rules one way on Issue X, ruling is appealed, appellate court affirms the ruling = all future trial courts that are underneath this specific appeals court must rule according to the appellate court's opinion</p><p>Not Precedent = trial court rules one way on issue Y, ruling is not appealed, new plaintiff brings new case in trial court regarding issue Y, trial judge is still free to rule as trial judge sees fit = no binding etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times will an inane Slashdot summary bitch about a case settling before trial because it " does not set precedent " ? The trial-court level does NOT set precedent .
The intermediate appeals court and the court of last resort are the courts that set precedent.Examples : Precedent = trial court rules one way on Issue X , ruling is appealed , appellate court affirms the ruling = all future trial courts that are underneath this specific appeals court must rule according to the appellate court 's opinionNot Precedent = trial court rules one way on issue Y , ruling is not appealed , new plaintiff brings new case in trial court regarding issue Y , trial judge is still free to rule as trial judge sees fit = no binding etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times will an inane Slashdot summary bitch about a case settling before trial because it "does not set precedent"?The trial-court level does NOT set precedent.
The intermediate appeals court and the court of last resort are the courts that set precedent.Examples:Precedent = trial court rules one way on Issue X, ruling is appealed, appellate court affirms the ruling = all future trial courts that are underneath this specific appeals court must rule according to the appellate court's opinionNot Precedent = trial court rules one way on issue Y, ruling is not appealed, new plaintiff brings new case in trial court regarding issue Y, trial judge is still free to rule as trial judge sees fit = no binding etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534574</id>
	<title>Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259765040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. It's not ferrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
It 's not ferrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
It's not ferrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534654</id>
	<title>Recycle the settlement</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1259765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phase 1: Find as many geeks in your area that are eligible for the settlement.</p><p>Phase 1a: Jump through the hoops this settlement will likely require ("Submissions must be sent on a 3x5 index card, handwritten in blue ink with no misspelled words, and a tiny drawing of a European Swallow hand drawn in the lower left hand corner not to exceed 13\% the total area of the card...")</p><p>Phase 2: ????</p><p>Phase 3: Have everyone deposit their checks, then send $16.00 donations to the EFF, OpenSSH Foundation, FSF, or FOSS project of your choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phase 1 : Find as many geeks in your area that are eligible for the settlement.Phase 1a : Jump through the hoops this settlement will likely require ( " Submissions must be sent on a 3x5 index card , handwritten in blue ink with no misspelled words , and a tiny drawing of a European Swallow hand drawn in the lower left hand corner not to exceed 13 \ % the total area of the card... " ) Phase 2 : ? ? ?
? Phase 3 : Have everyone deposit their checks , then send $ 16.00 donations to the EFF , OpenSSH Foundation , FSF , or FOSS project of your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phase 1: Find as many geeks in your area that are eligible for the settlement.Phase 1a: Jump through the hoops this settlement will likely require ("Submissions must be sent on a 3x5 index card, handwritten in blue ink with no misspelled words, and a tiny drawing of a European Swallow hand drawn in the lower left hand corner not to exceed 13\% the total area of the card...")Phase 2: ???
?Phase 3: Have everyone deposit their checks, then send $16.00 donations to the EFF, OpenSSH Foundation, FSF, or FOSS project of your choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538234</id>
	<title>Re:P2P for all updates</title>
	<author>eltaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259787540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree, but when we look at the big economic picture, essentially what this practice does is transfer the cost of bandwidth / traffic from the companies offering the downloads to the isps.<br>
many isps, especially in the states, can't do their one single job properly; transfering data. they dont want to put money into upgrading their infrastructure, they want to make the net a one-way street and they want to get paid handsomely for it.<br>
isps having to pick up their own slack and actually doing properly what they're paid to do is one of the arguments against net-neutrality.<br> <br>
it makes sense for companies offering updates. I can only imagine they don't want to use torrent tech because of the "bad" image it has in the public - thanks to the lying and misleading media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree , but when we look at the big economic picture , essentially what this practice does is transfer the cost of bandwidth / traffic from the companies offering the downloads to the isps .
many isps , especially in the states , ca n't do their one single job properly ; transfering data .
they dont want to put money into upgrading their infrastructure , they want to make the net a one-way street and they want to get paid handsomely for it .
isps having to pick up their own slack and actually doing properly what they 're paid to do is one of the arguments against net-neutrality .
it makes sense for companies offering updates .
I can only imagine they do n't want to use torrent tech because of the " bad " image it has in the public - thanks to the lying and misleading media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree, but when we look at the big economic picture, essentially what this practice does is transfer the cost of bandwidth / traffic from the companies offering the downloads to the isps.
many isps, especially in the states, can't do their one single job properly; transfering data.
they dont want to put money into upgrading their infrastructure, they want to make the net a one-way street and they want to get paid handsomely for it.
isps having to pick up their own slack and actually doing properly what they're paid to do is one of the arguments against net-neutrality.
it makes sense for companies offering updates.
I can only imagine they don't want to use torrent tech because of the "bad" image it has in the public - thanks to the lying and misleading media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536926</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your suspicions are correct.  My company actually initiated one of these class actions after getting sued by an unscrupulous customer with an unscrupulous lawyer.  Their case had no merit whatsoever, but it was about the 5th such case - clearly seeking an "it's cheaper to settle than litigate" settlement.  We got the unscrupulous lawyer to bite on the idea of owning a class action suit.  We then answered his subpoenas, helped him contact the class and get certified and then settle.  It immunized us from any future specious lawsuits and only cost about $1million net.  We had already spent that much winning the previous 4 lawsuits, so it was a no-brainer.  We cleaned up 10,000 cases and gave each customer a pittance and the lawyer got a decent payday even though he's a complete incompetent boob who was only looking to scam ten or twenty thousand in nuisance money from us in the first place.  It actually worked out OK.  It would have been better if there weren't dishonest people out there looking to cheat you, but absent that, it was a brilliant way to solve a problem that threatened to bleed us dry by a thousand paper cuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your suspicions are correct .
My company actually initiated one of these class actions after getting sued by an unscrupulous customer with an unscrupulous lawyer .
Their case had no merit whatsoever , but it was about the 5th such case - clearly seeking an " it 's cheaper to settle than litigate " settlement .
We got the unscrupulous lawyer to bite on the idea of owning a class action suit .
We then answered his subpoenas , helped him contact the class and get certified and then settle .
It immunized us from any future specious lawsuits and only cost about $ 1million net .
We had already spent that much winning the previous 4 lawsuits , so it was a no-brainer .
We cleaned up 10,000 cases and gave each customer a pittance and the lawyer got a decent payday even though he 's a complete incompetent boob who was only looking to scam ten or twenty thousand in nuisance money from us in the first place .
It actually worked out OK. It would have been better if there were n't dishonest people out there looking to cheat you , but absent that , it was a brilliant way to solve a problem that threatened to bleed us dry by a thousand paper cuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your suspicions are correct.
My company actually initiated one of these class actions after getting sued by an unscrupulous customer with an unscrupulous lawyer.
Their case had no merit whatsoever, but it was about the 5th such case - clearly seeking an "it's cheaper to settle than litigate" settlement.
We got the unscrupulous lawyer to bite on the idea of owning a class action suit.
We then answered his subpoenas, helped him contact the class and get certified and then settle.
It immunized us from any future specious lawsuits and only cost about $1million net.
We had already spent that much winning the previous 4 lawsuits, so it was a no-brainer.
We cleaned up 10,000 cases and gave each customer a pittance and the lawyer got a decent payday even though he's a complete incompetent boob who was only looking to scam ten or twenty thousand in nuisance money from us in the first place.
It actually worked out OK.  It would have been better if there weren't dishonest people out there looking to cheat you, but absent that, it was a brilliant way to solve a problem that threatened to bleed us dry by a thousand paper cuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534748</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is many of the laws on the books that crimes that ordinary people are committing were once ones that only organizations can do.</p><p>Lets just use Copyright infringement, back even 20 years ago being able to copy music from one device and spread it to millions of people needed a lot of money and resources.  Today one person can do it and have it spread like wildfire.  But the laws for fines for such actions are still based on the old model.  Sure it would $80,000 good fine for say a Radio Station to Play a song without rights to play it,  It wouldn't kill the radio station however for a small station it could really hit its profits.  But the ability to "accidentally" do such a crime is so much easier that anyone can do it. But the laws are written in a way that the fine could seriously bankrupt a person who made a mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is many of the laws on the books that crimes that ordinary people are committing were once ones that only organizations can do.Lets just use Copyright infringement , back even 20 years ago being able to copy music from one device and spread it to millions of people needed a lot of money and resources .
Today one person can do it and have it spread like wildfire .
But the laws for fines for such actions are still based on the old model .
Sure it would $ 80,000 good fine for say a Radio Station to Play a song without rights to play it , It would n't kill the radio station however for a small station it could really hit its profits .
But the ability to " accidentally " do such a crime is so much easier that anyone can do it .
But the laws are written in a way that the fine could seriously bankrupt a person who made a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is many of the laws on the books that crimes that ordinary people are committing were once ones that only organizations can do.Lets just use Copyright infringement, back even 20 years ago being able to copy music from one device and spread it to millions of people needed a lot of money and resources.
Today one person can do it and have it spread like wildfire.
But the laws for fines for such actions are still based on the old model.
Sure it would $80,000 good fine for say a Radio Station to Play a song without rights to play it,  It wouldn't kill the radio station however for a small station it could really hit its profits.
But the ability to "accidentally" do such a crime is so much easier that anyone can do it.
But the laws are written in a way that the fine could seriously bankrupt a person who made a mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538892</id>
	<title>Re:P2P for all updates</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1259748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to have a good method of code signing in place, and still have to have a central server to distribute the keys/signatures. P2P lets any of the peers start influencing the communication and possibly insert malicious code. Simple checksums aren't enough, and MITM attacks become very easy. It's perfectly possible, just a bit more work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to have a good method of code signing in place , and still have to have a central server to distribute the keys/signatures .
P2P lets any of the peers start influencing the communication and possibly insert malicious code .
Simple checksums are n't enough , and MITM attacks become very easy .
It 's perfectly possible , just a bit more work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to have a good method of code signing in place, and still have to have a central server to distribute the keys/signatures.
P2P lets any of the peers start influencing the communication and possibly insert malicious code.
Simple checksums aren't enough, and MITM attacks become very easy.
It's perfectly possible, just a bit more work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536098</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's full of Italians and thieves.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department and the letter "Soprano"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's full of Italians and thieves .
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department and the letter " Soprano "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's full of Italians and thieves.
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department and the letter "Soprano"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536866</id>
	<title>Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!</title>
	<author>need4mospd</author>
	<datestamp>1259779440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if he were more noble...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if he were more noble.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if he were more noble...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538748</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259747580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, who is going to be stupid enough to admit, on record, that they 'might be a pirate'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , who is going to be stupid enough to admit , on record , that they 'might be a pirate ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, who is going to be stupid enough to admit, on record, that they 'might be a pirate'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522</id>
	<title>Tell me</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1259764560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As part of the settlement, does Comcast get to hand over names and addresses of all the claimants to the MPAA/RIAA for a nice tidy sum, say, $16 million?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As part of the settlement , does Comcast get to hand over names and addresses of all the claimants to the MPAA/RIAA for a nice tidy sum , say , $ 16 million ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As part of the settlement, does Comcast get to hand over names and addresses of all the claimants to the MPAA/RIAA for a nice tidy sum, say, $16 million?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818</id>
	<title>Hasn't Stopped Comcast</title>
	<author>bilturner</author>
	<datestamp>1259767080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a Comcast user, and as soon as I fire up bit-torrent my cable-modem starts resetting every 2 minutes or so.  That has to be Comcast.  Takes my cable-modem a minute to cycle through the reset sequence, during which time I'm offline.  This tactic seems more egregious, though.  Before, they were just interfering with packets.  Now they're interrupting my service.     Turn off bit-torrent, cable modem and service runs like a charm.  Mysterious, isn't it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Comcast user , and as soon as I fire up bit-torrent my cable-modem starts resetting every 2 minutes or so .
That has to be Comcast .
Takes my cable-modem a minute to cycle through the reset sequence , during which time I 'm offline .
This tactic seems more egregious , though .
Before , they were just interfering with packets .
Now they 're interrupting my service .
Turn off bit-torrent , cable modem and service runs like a charm .
Mysterious , is n't it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Comcast user, and as soon as I fire up bit-torrent my cable-modem starts resetting every 2 minutes or so.
That has to be Comcast.
Takes my cable-modem a minute to cycle through the reset sequence, during which time I'm offline.
This tactic seems more egregious, though.
Before, they were just interfering with packets.
Now they're interrupting my service.
Turn off bit-torrent, cable modem and service runs like a charm.
Mysterious, isn't it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30541930</id>
	<title>My legit uses for BT</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1259777940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora\_(operating\_system)#Version\_history" title="wikipedia.org">Fedora</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#Release\_history" title="wikipedia.org">CentOS</a> [wikipedia.org] has had plenty of releases from April 1, 2006 - December 31, 2008.</p><p>I'm pretty sure I didn't jump to FC5 right away after release, so it was most likely downloaded during this time.  FC6, F7, F9, F10 were all downloaded during this time via BT.  C4.6, C5, C5.1, C5.2 were all downloaded during this time via BT.  Various other distros and LiveCDs were tried out during this time and also downloaded via BT.</p><p>I don't do warez.  I don't have time for it and the possible hassle in court.  I'd rather not try it, but I'd bet I'd come out on top with a countersuit for damages to my home business should any PCs be taken and there isn't a shred of proprietary crud on them.  The only exception is the TV shows I legally encode with my own capture cards or music files for all CDs I own which I personally ripped.  Again, I don't want to try it out in court, but I think I'd win pretty slam dunk easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora [ wikipedia.org ] and CentOS [ wikipedia.org ] has had plenty of releases from April 1 , 2006 - December 31 , 2008.I 'm pretty sure I did n't jump to FC5 right away after release , so it was most likely downloaded during this time .
FC6 , F7 , F9 , F10 were all downloaded during this time via BT .
C4.6 , C5 , C5.1 , C5.2 were all downloaded during this time via BT .
Various other distros and LiveCDs were tried out during this time and also downloaded via BT.I do n't do warez .
I do n't have time for it and the possible hassle in court .
I 'd rather not try it , but I 'd bet I 'd come out on top with a countersuit for damages to my home business should any PCs be taken and there is n't a shred of proprietary crud on them .
The only exception is the TV shows I legally encode with my own capture cards or music files for all CDs I own which I personally ripped .
Again , I do n't want to try it out in court , but I think I 'd win pretty slam dunk easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora [wikipedia.org] and CentOS [wikipedia.org] has had plenty of releases from April 1, 2006 - December 31, 2008.I'm pretty sure I didn't jump to FC5 right away after release, so it was most likely downloaded during this time.
FC6, F7, F9, F10 were all downloaded during this time via BT.
C4.6, C5, C5.1, C5.2 were all downloaded during this time via BT.
Various other distros and LiveCDs were tried out during this time and also downloaded via BT.I don't do warez.
I don't have time for it and the possible hassle in court.
I'd rather not try it, but I'd bet I'd come out on top with a countersuit for damages to my home business should any PCs be taken and there isn't a shred of proprietary crud on them.
The only exception is the TV shows I legally encode with my own capture cards or music files for all CDs I own which I personally ripped.
Again, I don't want to try it out in court, but I think I'd win pretty slam dunk easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537558</id>
	<title>Turn BitTorrent back on.</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1259783340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Throttling? Comcast apparently blocks BitTorrent period, at least in my district. It stopped working about 6 months ago. Thanks for doing me a favor and preventing me from "infringing" by downloading an Ubuntu disc. Assholes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Throttling ?
Comcast apparently blocks BitTorrent period , at least in my district .
It stopped working about 6 months ago .
Thanks for doing me a favor and preventing me from " infringing " by downloading an Ubuntu disc .
Assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throttling?
Comcast apparently blocks BitTorrent period, at least in my district.
It stopped working about 6 months ago.
Thanks for doing me a favor and preventing me from "infringing" by downloading an Ubuntu disc.
Assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</id>
	<title>Typical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again the lawyers are the only winners.  $16 is farcical, and the total $16 million is a rounding error for Comcast -- it doesn't serve as much incentive against bad behaviour in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the lawyers are the only winners .
$ 16 is farcical , and the total $ 16 million is a rounding error for Comcast -- it does n't serve as much incentive against bad behaviour in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the lawyers are the only winners.
$16 is farcical, and the total $16 million is a rounding error for Comcast -- it doesn't serve as much incentive against bad behaviour in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534476</id>
	<title>hm p2p?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so anyone who ran one of those p2p apps, and their download was slowed b/c their peer had comcast as their ISP, was damaged by comcast, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so anyone who ran one of those p2p apps , and their download was slowed b/c their peer had comcast as their ISP , was damaged by comcast , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so anyone who ran one of those p2p apps, and their download was slowed b/c their peer had comcast as their ISP, was damaged by comcast, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535226</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1259769660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously Comcast's reaction to this news will be to increase their fees to each consumer by $17.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously Comcast 's reaction to this news will be to increase their fees to each consumer by $ 17 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously Comcast's reaction to this news will be to increase their fees to each consumer by $17.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259767920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$16 million is a golf bet for the CEO of Comcast.  They'll make $16 million selling cable porn this afternoon.</p><p>I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was fined or sanctioned in such a way that it really changed their behavior.  Anyone want to give some examples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 16 million is a golf bet for the CEO of Comcast .
They 'll make $ 16 million selling cable porn this afternoon.I 'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was fined or sanctioned in such a way that it really changed their behavior .
Anyone want to give some examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$16 million is a golf bet for the CEO of Comcast.
They'll make $16 million selling cable porn this afternoon.I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was fined or sanctioned in such a way that it really changed their behavior.
Anyone want to give some examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534652</id>
	<title>Re:You won a boat! scam.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of people (I'm one) who uses BitTorrent, etc. to download Linux distros, FOS software, music that the artist encourages you to share (and there's more of that than there is RIAA music), etc.</p><p>P2P is not proof of illicit activity, although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of people ( I 'm one ) who uses BitTorrent , etc .
to download Linux distros , FOS software , music that the artist encourages you to share ( and there 's more of that than there is RIAA music ) , etc.P2P is not proof of illicit activity , although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of people (I'm one) who uses BitTorrent, etc.
to download Linux distros, FOS software, music that the artist encourages you to share (and there's more of that than there is RIAA music), etc.P2P is not proof of illicit activity, although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534620</id>
	<title>They're still doing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259765520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast in my area will start cutting connection to your modem if you use full bandwidth bittorrent for more than a few minutes. Reset your modem, and you're fine for another couple minutes, then it's out again.</p><p>If you turn off bittorrent, or throttle the settings back to rediculously low levels (say, 384 kbps download and 32kbps upload), there's no problem at all. If I pull a couple hundred megs down off a website or do a huge ubuntu update at full speed (1.8megabytes a second or so) I never have any problems, It is completely obvious that it's heavy bittorrent usage that 'causes' this.</p><p>Really makes me wonder who the hell "Comcast Extreme 50" is for. I see those signs all the time around here and can't figure out who they are expecting to buy those. Who the hell needs 50mbps downloads except bittorrent users... and Comcast has made it clear they will do everything possible to discourage bittorrent usage, they just keep changing the tactic. now it's 'connection quality' issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast in my area will start cutting connection to your modem if you use full bandwidth bittorrent for more than a few minutes .
Reset your modem , and you 're fine for another couple minutes , then it 's out again.If you turn off bittorrent , or throttle the settings back to rediculously low levels ( say , 384 kbps download and 32kbps upload ) , there 's no problem at all .
If I pull a couple hundred megs down off a website or do a huge ubuntu update at full speed ( 1.8megabytes a second or so ) I never have any problems , It is completely obvious that it 's heavy bittorrent usage that 'causes ' this.Really makes me wonder who the hell " Comcast Extreme 50 " is for .
I see those signs all the time around here and ca n't figure out who they are expecting to buy those .
Who the hell needs 50mbps downloads except bittorrent users... and Comcast has made it clear they will do everything possible to discourage bittorrent usage , they just keep changing the tactic .
now it 's 'connection quality ' issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast in my area will start cutting connection to your modem if you use full bandwidth bittorrent for more than a few minutes.
Reset your modem, and you're fine for another couple minutes, then it's out again.If you turn off bittorrent, or throttle the settings back to rediculously low levels (say, 384 kbps download and 32kbps upload), there's no problem at all.
If I pull a couple hundred megs down off a website or do a huge ubuntu update at full speed (1.8megabytes a second or so) I never have any problems, It is completely obvious that it's heavy bittorrent usage that 'causes' this.Really makes me wonder who the hell "Comcast Extreme 50" is for.
I see those signs all the time around here and can't figure out who they are expecting to buy those.
Who the hell needs 50mbps downloads except bittorrent users... and Comcast has made it clear they will do everything possible to discourage bittorrent usage, they just keep changing the tactic.
now it's 'connection quality' issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534666</id>
	<title>Re:You won a boat! scam.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.</p></div><p>If I had to go to an office to get my check, I'd bring a burned copy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDisc" title="wikipedia.org">OpenDisc</a> [wikipedia.org] (free software for Windows) and give it to whoever would give me the check.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey p2p users you can get $ 16 come register at our office to pick up the money.If I had to go to an office to get my check , I 'd bring a burned copy of OpenDisc [ wikipedia.org ] ( free software for Windows ) and give it to whoever would give me the check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.If I had to go to an office to get my check, I'd bring a burned copy of OpenDisc [wikipedia.org] (free software for Windows) and give it to whoever would give me the check.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535666</id>
	<title>Still going on?</title>
	<author>Ornlu</author>
	<datestamp>1259772360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oddly enough, I'm moving to Houston in a week, so I need to sign up for an ISP.  Comcast is the only cable provider in the whole city, so they've got the market cornered on speed.

I did the whole "chat now" thing that popped up when checking availability.  I asked about bandwidth caps and P2P throttling.  They referred me to a tech hotline.

Here's the gist of the conversation with the CS tech rep:
I've got 3 questions, 1) To your knowledge, does Comcast throttle P2P traffic? 2) To your knowledge, does Comcast cap the monthly bandwidth for connections? 3) To your knowledge, does Comcast block any incoming/outgoing ports?
They replied: "I've never heard of throttling or 'bandwidth'. What do you mean by those?"
I then had to explain what bandwidth was... to a cable co tech support "guru".

I'm definitely not signing up with this incompetent &amp; abusive company that feels no obligation to actually meet its TOS.   A couple questions come do to my mind however:
Are they still blocking P2P?
Would they admit to further throttling if they are doing it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , I 'm moving to Houston in a week , so I need to sign up for an ISP .
Comcast is the only cable provider in the whole city , so they 've got the market cornered on speed .
I did the whole " chat now " thing that popped up when checking availability .
I asked about bandwidth caps and P2P throttling .
They referred me to a tech hotline .
Here 's the gist of the conversation with the CS tech rep : I 've got 3 questions , 1 ) To your knowledge , does Comcast throttle P2P traffic ?
2 ) To your knowledge , does Comcast cap the monthly bandwidth for connections ?
3 ) To your knowledge , does Comcast block any incoming/outgoing ports ?
They replied : " I 've never heard of throttling or 'bandwidth' .
What do you mean by those ?
" I then had to explain what bandwidth was... to a cable co tech support " guru " .
I 'm definitely not signing up with this incompetent &amp; abusive company that feels no obligation to actually meet its TOS .
A couple questions come do to my mind however : Are they still blocking P2P ?
Would they admit to further throttling if they are doing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, I'm moving to Houston in a week, so I need to sign up for an ISP.
Comcast is the only cable provider in the whole city, so they've got the market cornered on speed.
I did the whole "chat now" thing that popped up when checking availability.
I asked about bandwidth caps and P2P throttling.
They referred me to a tech hotline.
Here's the gist of the conversation with the CS tech rep:
I've got 3 questions, 1) To your knowledge, does Comcast throttle P2P traffic?
2) To your knowledge, does Comcast cap the monthly bandwidth for connections?
3) To your knowledge, does Comcast block any incoming/outgoing ports?
They replied: "I've never heard of throttling or 'bandwidth'.
What do you mean by those?
"
I then had to explain what bandwidth was... to a cable co tech support "guru".
I'm definitely not signing up with this incompetent &amp; abusive company that feels no obligation to actually meet its TOS.
A couple questions come do to my mind however:
Are they still blocking P2P?
Would they admit to further throttling if they are doing it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536134</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1259775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. Unfortunately U.S. laws are usually written to favor corporations at the expense of individuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Unfortunately U.S. laws are usually written to favor corporations at the expense of individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Unfortunately U.S. laws are usually written to favor corporations at the expense of individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535842</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>Spykk</author>
	<datestamp>1259773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, I'm not sure about all this. I'm going to have to check with admiral Ackbar on this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I 'm not sure about all this .
I 'm going to have to check with admiral Ackbar on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I'm not sure about all this.
I'm going to have to check with admiral Ackbar on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260</id>
	<title>P2P for all updates</title>
	<author>drew30319</author>
	<datestamp>1259776140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've wondered for some time (and often aloud, but nobody has ever responded) as to why more software updates aren't done via P2P?<br> <br>

Benefits:<br> <br>

(1) It's more efficient for everybody (I would <i>imagine</i> that bandwidth for folks like MS / AVG / even SourceForge would be lower by at least a magnitude of ten)<br>
(2) It further legitimizes P2P<br>
(3) It forces ISP's hand in treating bittorrents like all other traffic<br> <br>

While I appreciate that the tin-hat-wearers may believe that the MPAA / RIAA wouldn't want such a move I wonder if there are technical aspects of which I'm unaware?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered for some time ( and often aloud , but nobody has ever responded ) as to why more software updates are n't done via P2P ?
Benefits : ( 1 ) It 's more efficient for everybody ( I would imagine that bandwidth for folks like MS / AVG / even SourceForge would be lower by at least a magnitude of ten ) ( 2 ) It further legitimizes P2P ( 3 ) It forces ISP 's hand in treating bittorrents like all other traffic While I appreciate that the tin-hat-wearers may believe that the MPAA / RIAA would n't want such a move I wonder if there are technical aspects of which I 'm unaware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered for some time (and often aloud, but nobody has ever responded) as to why more software updates aren't done via P2P?
Benefits: 

(1) It's more efficient for everybody (I would imagine that bandwidth for folks like MS / AVG / even SourceForge would be lower by at least a magnitude of ten)
(2) It further legitimizes P2P
(3) It forces ISP's hand in treating bittorrents like all other traffic 

While I appreciate that the tin-hat-wearers may believe that the MPAA / RIAA wouldn't want such a move I wonder if there are technical aspects of which I'm unaware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538280</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259744640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford, over the Pinto. It's really sad I have to look back to the '70s for an example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford , over the Pinto .
It 's really sad I have to look back to the '70s for an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford, over the Pinto.
It's really sad I have to look back to the '70s for an example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535622</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me</title>
	<author>jlarocco</author>
	<datestamp>1259772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
How can people on Slashdot be so fucking dumb?  If Comcast wanted to sell your name to the RIAA or MPAA, they already have all the information they need.  Hell, they could hand over your credit card number, if they wanted to.
</p><p>
Yeah, Comcast sucks, but use your fucking brains, people.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can people on Slashdot be so fucking dumb ?
If Comcast wanted to sell your name to the RIAA or MPAA , they already have all the information they need .
Hell , they could hand over your credit card number , if they wanted to .
Yeah , Comcast sucks , but use your fucking brains , people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How can people on Slashdot be so fucking dumb?
If Comcast wanted to sell your name to the RIAA or MPAA, they already have all the information they need.
Hell, they could hand over your credit card number, if they wanted to.
Yeah, Comcast sucks, but use your fucking brains, people.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534464</id>
	<title>Ummmm..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259764020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Comcast customer, I was throttled, I've never used my connection to download music or movies (TV shows and OSS only), and I still don't think I want to apply for my $16 pittance.</p><p>Prediction:  The sharks who ran this class-action suit aren't going to be satisfied with $6.4 million (the usual 40\% of $16 million), and they're going to make a few more bucks sell the names and details to RIAA/MPAA so everyone who receives their $16 will be slapped with a $999999 gazillion lawsuit for illegal file sharing.  Most of the P2P users end up disconnected and eventually homeless after the spate of ruinous P2P lawsuits, Comcast gets to dump their heaviest-bandwidth users, everyone wins except the granny whose next door neighbor mooched off her WiFi and got a copy of Avatar.</p><p>"A strange game.  The only way to win is not to play."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Comcast customer , I was throttled , I 've never used my connection to download music or movies ( TV shows and OSS only ) , and I still do n't think I want to apply for my $ 16 pittance.Prediction : The sharks who ran this class-action suit are n't going to be satisfied with $ 6.4 million ( the usual 40 \ % of $ 16 million ) , and they 're going to make a few more bucks sell the names and details to RIAA/MPAA so everyone who receives their $ 16 will be slapped with a $ 999999 gazillion lawsuit for illegal file sharing .
Most of the P2P users end up disconnected and eventually homeless after the spate of ruinous P2P lawsuits , Comcast gets to dump their heaviest-bandwidth users , everyone wins except the granny whose next door neighbor mooched off her WiFi and got a copy of Avatar .
" A strange game .
The only way to win is not to play .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Comcast customer, I was throttled, I've never used my connection to download music or movies (TV shows and OSS only), and I still don't think I want to apply for my $16 pittance.Prediction:  The sharks who ran this class-action suit aren't going to be satisfied with $6.4 million (the usual 40\% of $16 million), and they're going to make a few more bucks sell the names and details to RIAA/MPAA so everyone who receives their $16 will be slapped with a $999999 gazillion lawsuit for illegal file sharing.
Most of the P2P users end up disconnected and eventually homeless after the spate of ruinous P2P lawsuits, Comcast gets to dump their heaviest-bandwidth users, everyone wins except the granny whose next door neighbor mooched off her WiFi and got a copy of Avatar.
"A strange game.
The only way to win is not to play.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536132</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although it wasn't a fine, McDonald's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee. While the case has been the butt of many, many jokes the jokes (and vitriol) are primarily based on misinformation.<br> <br>

Between 1982 and 1992, over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F, a temperature that can result in <b>third-degree burns in as little as two seconds</b>. They had already paid claims as high as $500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries. <br> <br>

Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous "coffee lawsuit."  In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru; placed the cup between her knees; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar.  The cup slipped, spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid, resulting in serious burns.(1)  This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16\% of her body, 8\% of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin, buttocks, and thighs.  She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries.<br> <br>

She requested $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical bills (which were $11,000) but McDonald's only offered $800.  After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $225,000 but McDonald's refused. At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries (20\%) with McDonald's liable for the remaining 80\%.  She was awarded $160,000 ($200,000 less 20\%) for compensatory damages (actual damages plus injury and harm) as well as $2.7M in punitive damages (intended to punish the harming party).  The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day's sales of McDonald's coffee throughout the franchise.(2)  The jury's intention was to <i>send McDonald's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices.</i> <br> <br>

It worked.  Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald's location was twenty degrees cooler.  Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru, mitigating the risk of a repeat incident.<br> <br>

Unfortunately this "example" of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests.  When it's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are "pro-consumer." <br> <br>

I agree that $16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast (at least to the extent that their customers would like) but feel that it's a step in the right direction.  I'm one of the "affected" customers here and will take my $16 and move on; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence (or continue?) their behavior in the future. <br> <br>

--------<br> <br>
(1) Despite common belief to the contrary, Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car.  She was a passenger.  Additionally, the driver, her grandson, actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid.  She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a "reasonable" person.<br> <br>

(2) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $600,000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it was n't a fine , McDonald 's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee .
While the case has been the butt of many , many jokes the jokes ( and vitriol ) are primarily based on misinformation .
Between 1982 and 1992 , over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald 's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking ; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F , a temperature that can result in third-degree burns in as little as two seconds .
They had already paid claims as high as $ 500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries .
Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous " coffee lawsuit .
" In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald 's drive-thru ; placed the cup between her knees ; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar .
The cup slipped , spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid , resulting in serious burns .
( 1 ) This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16 \ % of her body , 8 \ % of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin , buttocks , and thighs .
She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries .
She requested $ 20,000 from McDonald 's to cover her medical bills ( which were $ 11,000 ) but McDonald 's only offered $ 800 .
After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $ 225,000 but McDonald 's refused .
At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries ( 20 \ % ) with McDonald 's liable for the remaining 80 \ % .
She was awarded $ 160,000 ( $ 200,000 less 20 \ % ) for compensatory damages ( actual damages plus injury and harm ) as well as $ 2.7M in punitive damages ( intended to punish the harming party ) .
The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day 's sales of McDonald 's coffee throughout the franchise .
( 2 ) The jury 's intention was to send McDonald 's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices .
It worked .
Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald 's location was twenty degrees cooler .
Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru , mitigating the risk of a repeat incident .
Unfortunately this " example " of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests .
When it 's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are " pro-consumer .
" I agree that $ 16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast ( at least to the extent that their customers would like ) but feel that it 's a step in the right direction .
I 'm one of the " affected " customers here and will take my $ 16 and move on ; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence ( or continue ?
) their behavior in the future .
-------- ( 1 ) Despite common belief to the contrary , Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car .
She was a passenger .
Additionally , the driver , her grandson , actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid .
She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a " reasonable " person .
( 2 ) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $ 480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $ 600,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it wasn't a fine, McDonald's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee.
While the case has been the butt of many, many jokes the jokes (and vitriol) are primarily based on misinformation.
Between 1982 and 1992, over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F, a temperature that can result in third-degree burns in as little as two seconds.
They had already paid claims as high as $500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries.
Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous "coffee lawsuit.
"  In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru; placed the cup between her knees; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar.
The cup slipped, spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid, resulting in serious burns.
(1)  This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16\% of her body, 8\% of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin, buttocks, and thighs.
She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries.
She requested $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical bills (which were $11,000) but McDonald's only offered $800.
After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $225,000 but McDonald's refused.
At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries (20\%) with McDonald's liable for the remaining 80\%.
She was awarded $160,000 ($200,000 less 20\%) for compensatory damages (actual damages plus injury and harm) as well as $2.7M in punitive damages (intended to punish the harming party).
The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day's sales of McDonald's coffee throughout the franchise.
(2)  The jury's intention was to send McDonald's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices.
It worked.
Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald's location was twenty degrees cooler.
Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru, mitigating the risk of a repeat incident.
Unfortunately this "example" of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests.
When it's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are "pro-consumer.
"  

I agree that $16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast (at least to the extent that their customers would like) but feel that it's a step in the right direction.
I'm one of the "affected" customers here and will take my $16 and move on; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence (or continue?
) their behavior in the future.
-------- 
(1) Despite common belief to the contrary, Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car.
She was a passenger.
Additionally, the driver, her grandson, actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid.
She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a "reasonable" person.
(2) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $600,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535528</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it is easier to blame greedy lawyers, or some other unpopular group, but the $16M figure may have been low because the cause of action was weak and the damages are fairly speculative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it is easier to blame greedy lawyers , or some other unpopular group , but the $ 16M figure may have been low because the cause of action was weak and the damages are fairly speculative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it is easier to blame greedy lawyers, or some other unpopular group, but the $16M figure may have been low because the cause of action was weak and the damages are fairly speculative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534640</id>
	<title>Letter from my ex-wife. to comcast</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1259765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Comcast's Lawyers,</p><p>I'd like to receive my $16, as I was unable to download numerous hit Hollywood movies and popular music at acceptable speeds while on your service.  I was affected while using such protocols as E-donkey, Bittorrent, Limewire, Gnutella, and anything else that might get me sued.  Please send the check to my address above.</p><p>Yours Truly,</p><p>Fished's Ex-Wife</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Comcast 's Lawyers,I 'd like to receive my $ 16 , as I was unable to download numerous hit Hollywood movies and popular music at acceptable speeds while on your service .
I was affected while using such protocols as E-donkey , Bittorrent , Limewire , Gnutella , and anything else that might get me sued .
Please send the check to my address above.Yours Truly,Fished 's Ex-Wife</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Comcast's Lawyers,I'd like to receive my $16, as I was unable to download numerous hit Hollywood movies and popular music at acceptable speeds while on your service.
I was affected while using such protocols as E-donkey, Bittorrent, Limewire, Gnutella, and anything else that might get me sued.
Please send the check to my address above.Yours Truly,Fished's Ex-Wife</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534418</id>
	<title>I for one welcome...</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1259763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... this efficient new way for RIAA and MPAA to identify people to sue - for $16 I am of course very likely to say "hey, I use p2p!" (or go through the shame of admitting that I use Lotus Notes) and then wait for the gazillion dollar lawsuit to come my way for downloading Ubuntu 7...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... this efficient new way for RIAA and MPAA to identify people to sue - for $ 16 I am of course very likely to say " hey , I use p2p !
" ( or go through the shame of admitting that I use Lotus Notes ) and then wait for the gazillion dollar lawsuit to come my way for downloading Ubuntu 7.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this efficient new way for RIAA and MPAA to identify people to sue - for $16 I am of course very likely to say "hey, I use p2p!
" (or go through the shame of admitting that I use Lotus Notes) and then wait for the gazillion dollar lawsuit to come my way for downloading Ubuntu 7...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534566</id>
	<title>Re:You won a boat! scam.</title>
	<author>slaughterhause</author>
	<datestamp>1259764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, a boat's a boat, but the $16 could buy you anything.  It could even buy you a (toy) boat!

You know how much we've wanted one of those.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a boat 's a boat , but the $ 16 could buy you anything .
It could even buy you a ( toy ) boat !
You know how much we 've wanted one of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a boat's a boat, but the $16 could buy you anything.
It could even buy you a (toy) boat!
You know how much we've wanted one of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536886</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1259779560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/spotlight-comcast-ceo-s-pay-dips-to-20.8-million/2008-04-03" title="fiercetelecom.com">Not quite</a> [fiercetelecom.com], unless he's betting 75\% of his salary.</p><p>Granted, $16M is still just half a percent of their net income for 2008, but half a percent is probably enough.  For someone making $50k/yr, half a percent of that would be $250 -- enough of a penalty to make most people take notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite [ fiercetelecom.com ] , unless he 's betting 75 \ % of his salary.Granted , $ 16M is still just half a percent of their net income for 2008 , but half a percent is probably enough .
For someone making $ 50k/yr , half a percent of that would be $ 250 -- enough of a penalty to make most people take notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite [fiercetelecom.com], unless he's betting 75\% of his salary.Granted, $16M is still just half a percent of their net income for 2008, but half a percent is probably enough.
For someone making $50k/yr, half a percent of that would be $250 -- enough of a penalty to make most people take notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537676</id>
	<title>Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259784240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it can't cope with the number of connections to be forwarded or whatever.<br>The provider doesn't have to reset the modem to throttle or kill p2p connections.</p><p>I've once been sharing a slow asymmetric connection in a living community as a student and p2p applications made gaming and any low latency applications impossible to use, so I set up our linux router for p2p traffic shaping, especially important was shaping the uploads, because if the upload channel is saturated and there is no traffic shaping, it also kills the effective download speed, because important ACK packages get thrown away in the upstream bottleneck. At that time I thought p2p was like the plague, because it took me a lot of time until everything was running that I got a decent ping under heavy load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it ca n't cope with the number of connections to be forwarded or whatever.The provider does n't have to reset the modem to throttle or kill p2p connections.I 've once been sharing a slow asymmetric connection in a living community as a student and p2p applications made gaming and any low latency applications impossible to use , so I set up our linux router for p2p traffic shaping , especially important was shaping the uploads , because if the upload channel is saturated and there is no traffic shaping , it also kills the effective download speed , because important ACK packages get thrown away in the upstream bottleneck .
At that time I thought p2p was like the plague , because it took me a lot of time until everything was running that I got a decent ping under heavy load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it can't cope with the number of connections to be forwarded or whatever.The provider doesn't have to reset the modem to throttle or kill p2p connections.I've once been sharing a slow asymmetric connection in a living community as a student and p2p applications made gaming and any low latency applications impossible to use, so I set up our linux router for p2p traffic shaping, especially important was shaping the uploads, because if the upload channel is saturated and there is no traffic shaping, it also kills the effective download speed, because important ACK packages get thrown away in the upstream bottleneck.
At that time I thought p2p was like the plague, because it took me a lot of time until everything was running that I got a decent ping under heavy load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535408</id>
	<title>Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast</title>
	<author>Zontar\_Thing\_From\_Ve</author>
	<datestamp>1259770680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>PPalmgren's suggestion is certainly worth investigating, but have you tried throttling your upload speed on your client?  I had some serious problems until I cut way back on my upload speed and that made things calm down.  I have no issues with downloading as fast as possible, but things start to get very bad for me if I allow the default unlimited speed on uploads.  I have AT&amp;T and not Comcast, but maybe you might look into that and see if it makes any difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PPalmgren 's suggestion is certainly worth investigating , but have you tried throttling your upload speed on your client ?
I had some serious problems until I cut way back on my upload speed and that made things calm down .
I have no issues with downloading as fast as possible , but things start to get very bad for me if I allow the default unlimited speed on uploads .
I have AT&amp;T and not Comcast , but maybe you might look into that and see if it makes any difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PPalmgren's suggestion is certainly worth investigating, but have you tried throttling your upload speed on your client?
I had some serious problems until I cut way back on my upload speed and that made things calm down.
I have no issues with downloading as fast as possible, but things start to get very bad for me if I allow the default unlimited speed on uploads.
I have AT&amp;T and not Comcast, but maybe you might look into that and see if it makes any difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30539700</id>
	<title>Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same things with AT&amp;T (SBC) DSL, although my broken ethernet card might play a role too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same things with AT&amp;T ( SBC ) DSL , although my broken ethernet card might play a role too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same things with AT&amp;T (SBC) DSL, although my broken ethernet card might play a role too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534430</id>
	<title>1\%?</title>
	<author>MikeD83</author>
	<datestamp>1259763660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming someone paid for only internet access at $35 per month during the time Comcast was infringing their rights they would have paid Comcast $1,155. Comcast is only required to pay damages of 1\%? Wow... that's Comcastic!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming someone paid for only internet access at $ 35 per month during the time Comcast was infringing their rights they would have paid Comcast $ 1,155 .
Comcast is only required to pay damages of 1 \ % ?
Wow... that 's Comcastic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming someone paid for only internet access at $35 per month during the time Comcast was infringing their rights they would have paid Comcast $1,155.
Comcast is only required to pay damages of 1\%?
Wow... that's Comcastic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535620</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right because pursuing the suit to a ruling would've cut down on legal fees &amp; gotten more money to consumers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right because pursuing the suit to a ruling would 've cut down on legal fees &amp; gotten more money to consumers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right because pursuing the suit to a ruling would've cut down on legal fees &amp; gotten more money to consumers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535420</id>
	<title>I knew it.</title>
	<author>Xupa</author>
	<datestamp>1259770800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is fantastic. I had Comcast from 2005-2007 and during the last few months my connection went to shit. Basic diagnostics proved I was being throttled and when I asked my local branch they swore hell no. They were real nice, they came and checked my wires, but I knew. It was fine until I started up a torrent. I had practically no service the last three weeks I lived in that area and when I got my last bill I sent it back to them with a nice note explaining that I hadn't received any service and had no intentions of paying for it. They keep sending me a bill for $80. I keep printing the same note. Now I'm gonna get my $16 and what the hell, I'll pay them the other $64. Just as long as somewhere a judge told them that was wrong and I don't gotta pay for all of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is fantastic .
I had Comcast from 2005-2007 and during the last few months my connection went to shit .
Basic diagnostics proved I was being throttled and when I asked my local branch they swore hell no .
They were real nice , they came and checked my wires , but I knew .
It was fine until I started up a torrent .
I had practically no service the last three weeks I lived in that area and when I got my last bill I sent it back to them with a nice note explaining that I had n't received any service and had no intentions of paying for it .
They keep sending me a bill for $ 80 .
I keep printing the same note .
Now I 'm gon na get my $ 16 and what the hell , I 'll pay them the other $ 64 .
Just as long as somewhere a judge told them that was wrong and I do n't got ta pay for all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is fantastic.
I had Comcast from 2005-2007 and during the last few months my connection went to shit.
Basic diagnostics proved I was being throttled and when I asked my local branch they swore hell no.
They were real nice, they came and checked my wires, but I knew.
It was fine until I started up a torrent.
I had practically no service the last three weeks I lived in that area and when I got my last bill I sent it back to them with a nice note explaining that I hadn't received any service and had no intentions of paying for it.
They keep sending me a bill for $80.
I keep printing the same note.
Now I'm gonna get my $16 and what the hell, I'll pay them the other $64.
Just as long as somewhere a judge told them that was wrong and I don't gotta pay for all of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537182</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>Gerald</author>
	<datestamp>1259781120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$16 isn't a lot. However, I'm still going to apply for the settlement and will make it part of a larger donation to the local food bank and/or homeless shelter. I encourage you to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 16 is n't a lot .
However , I 'm still going to apply for the settlement and will make it part of a larger donation to the local food bank and/or homeless shelter .
I encourage you to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$16 isn't a lot.
However, I'm still going to apply for the settlement and will make it part of a larger donation to the local food bank and/or homeless shelter.
I encourage you to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537944</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1259785860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How much of a fine is enough?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I've always felt that all fines (anything from traffic violations to sanctions against companies) should be a percentage of the target's net worth.  This completely eliminates the concern that the law is much more of a deterrent against poor people and small organizations while hardly amounting to a rounding error for the wealthy and multinational corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of a fine is enough ?
I 've always felt that all fines ( anything from traffic violations to sanctions against companies ) should be a percentage of the target 's net worth .
This completely eliminates the concern that the law is much more of a deterrent against poor people and small organizations while hardly amounting to a rounding error for the wealthy and multinational corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of a fine is enough?
I've always felt that all fines (anything from traffic violations to sanctions against companies) should be a percentage of the target's net worth.
This completely eliminates the concern that the law is much more of a deterrent against poor people and small organizations while hardly amounting to a rounding error for the wealthy and multinational corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536224</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of a fine is enough?  I kinda think that they won't accept any less of a profit, so the only place the money can come from is to decrease the level of service they have (or not roll out new things such as faster, more competitive internet access), or by raising rates. Facing those two possibilities, I'd rather a lower fine and come up with some other non-monetary punishment that will benefit their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of a fine is enough ?
I kinda think that they wo n't accept any less of a profit , so the only place the money can come from is to decrease the level of service they have ( or not roll out new things such as faster , more competitive internet access ) , or by raising rates .
Facing those two possibilities , I 'd rather a lower fine and come up with some other non-monetary punishment that will benefit their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of a fine is enough?
I kinda think that they won't accept any less of a profit, so the only place the money can come from is to decrease the level of service they have (or not roll out new things such as faster, more competitive internet access), or by raising rates.
Facing those two possibilities, I'd rather a lower fine and come up with some other non-monetary punishment that will benefit their customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535592</id>
	<title>Re:So hit them where it hurts their pocket book</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1259771820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the words "monopoly" mean anything to you?</p><p>Comcast apparently sucks...but does it suck bad enough that, when there's no other game in town, it's better to just do without?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the words " monopoly " mean anything to you ? Comcast apparently sucks...but does it suck bad enough that , when there 's no other game in town , it 's better to just do without ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the words "monopoly" mean anything to you?Comcast apparently sucks...but does it suck bad enough that, when there's no other game in town, it's better to just do without?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535546</id>
	<title>Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the Mitch Hedburg joke: "At the doctor, they tried to trick me with all these yes or no questions. Have you ever tried sugar?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or PCP?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the Mitch Hedburg joke : " At the doctor , they tried to trick me with all these yes or no questions .
Have you ever tried sugar ?
... or PCP ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the Mitch Hedburg joke: "At the doctor, they tried to trick me with all these yes or no questions.
Have you ever tried sugar?
... or PCP?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416</id>
	<title>You won a boat! scam.</title>
	<author>splatter</author>
	<datestamp>1259763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok I realize I have my tin hat firmly on but does this sound to anyone like the old you won a boat trick to catch wanted people.</p><p>Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.</p><p>On another note, what happens if no one claims  money like this from class action suits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok I realize I have my tin hat firmly on but does this sound to anyone like the old you won a boat trick to catch wanted people.Hey p2p users you can get $ 16 come register at our office to pick up the money.On another note , what happens if no one claims money like this from class action suits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok I realize I have my tin hat firmly on but does this sound to anyone like the old you won a boat trick to catch wanted people.Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.On another note, what happens if no one claims  money like this from class action suits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534388</id>
	<title>Seriously,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People need to stop using the internet so much. I never use the internet because it is just a big waste of time and it's full of Italians and thieves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to stop using the internet so much .
I never use the internet because it is just a big waste of time and it 's full of Italians and thieves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to stop using the internet so much.
I never use the internet because it is just a big waste of time and it's full of Italians and thieves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535104</id>
	<title>SWEET!</title>
	<author>HideyoshiJP</author>
	<datestamp>1259768880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>$16.00! I can finally get that steak I've been craving!</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 16.00 !
I can finally get that steak I 've been craving !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$16.00!
I can finally get that steak I've been craving!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535294</id>
	<title>So hit them where it hurts their pocket book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259770020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers.  Unfortuneately, lawyers aren't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them.  While more doesn't mean better, it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company.  Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ($5 X 1 million people, you get the idea).  </p><p>Regardless of this, getting a settlement of 16 million isn't going to hurt anyone. They'll make that amount back from a "customer" in a few months.  So if you disagree with a company's practicies... don't use that company.  Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider.  It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing, and thus financing their legal defense against your claim.  Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers .
Unfortuneately , lawyers are n't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them .
While more does n't mean better , it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company .
Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ( $ 5 X 1 million people , you get the idea ) .
Regardless of this , getting a settlement of 16 million is n't going to hurt anyone .
They 'll make that amount back from a " customer " in a few months .
So if you disagree with a company 's practicies... do n't use that company .
Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider .
It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing , and thus financing their legal defense against your claim .
Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16 $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers.
Unfortuneately, lawyers aren't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them.
While more doesn't mean better, it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company.
Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ($5 X 1 million people, you get the idea).
Regardless of this, getting a settlement of 16 million isn't going to hurt anyone.
They'll make that amount back from a "customer" in a few months.
So if you disagree with a company's practicies... don't use that company.
Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider.
It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing, and thus financing their legal defense against your claim.
Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538458</id>
	<title>Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1259745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone else said, BitTorrent is a protocol. You can actually <a href="http://www.wowwiki.com/Blizzard\_Downloader#Structure" title="wowwiki.com">extract the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.torrent file from the Blizzard updater</a> [wowwiki.com] and use your favorite BitTorrent client to download the patch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone else said , BitTorrent is a protocol .
You can actually extract the .torrent file from the Blizzard updater [ wowwiki.com ] and use your favorite BitTorrent client to download the patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone else said, BitTorrent is a protocol.
You can actually extract the .torrent file from the Blizzard updater [wowwiki.com] and use your favorite BitTorrent client to download the patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534586</id>
	<title>It's a trap!</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259765160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols</p></div></blockquote><p>They'll give you 16 bucks, and the RIAA will take 20 grand!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares , BitTorrent , eDonkey , FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocolsThey 'll give you 16 bucks , and the RIAA will take 20 grand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocolsThey'll give you 16 bucks, and the RIAA will take 20 grand!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534450</id>
	<title>GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259763900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Happy Christmass to ANY !!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Happy Christmass to ANY ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Happy Christmass to ANY !!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537770</id>
	<title>Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1259784720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had this same issue.  It is Comcast, but it is because they gave you a faulty modem (either crappy, broken or misconfigured).  File a complaint, then demand a new modem.</p><p>Also make sure to get a new modem directly from Comcast.  Many of the at-home technicians are outsourced to other companies.  At least in my area, most of these companies just take defective modems from one location and then use it at the next house call (this was verified by two Comcast employees).  If you get it directly from a Comcast location you are more likely to get a non-defective modem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this same issue .
It is Comcast , but it is because they gave you a faulty modem ( either crappy , broken or misconfigured ) .
File a complaint , then demand a new modem.Also make sure to get a new modem directly from Comcast .
Many of the at-home technicians are outsourced to other companies .
At least in my area , most of these companies just take defective modems from one location and then use it at the next house call ( this was verified by two Comcast employees ) .
If you get it directly from a Comcast location you are more likely to get a non-defective modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this same issue.
It is Comcast, but it is because they gave you a faulty modem (either crappy, broken or misconfigured).
File a complaint, then demand a new modem.Also make sure to get a new modem directly from Comcast.
Many of the at-home technicians are outsourced to other companies.
At least in my area, most of these companies just take defective modems from one location and then use it at the next house call (this was verified by two Comcast employees).
If you get it directly from a Comcast location you are more likely to get a non-defective modem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534404</id>
	<title>So....</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1259763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$2000 to make up for years of slow ISO downloads,<br>
$15,998,000 to punch deep enough to hit Comcast's pain receptors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2000 to make up for years of slow ISO downloads , $ 15,998,000 to punch deep enough to hit Comcast 's pain receptors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2000 to make up for years of slow ISO downloads,
$15,998,000 to punch deep enough to hit Comcast's pain receptors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536684</id>
	<title>Re:Typical!</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1259778240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the description<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:"and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008;"

Well, I think their $16 million just blew up. Since bittorrent is a P2P service, I'm sure any one who used bittorrent AT ALL "attempted to use Comcast service" to download something.

<br> <br>Personally, I think they should have to pay $16 to all of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the description : " and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares , BitTorrent , eDonkey , FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1 , 2006 to December 31 , 2008 ; " Well , I think their $ 16 million just blew up .
Since bittorrent is a P2P service , I 'm sure any one who used bittorrent AT ALL " attempted to use Comcast service " to download something .
Personally , I think they should have to pay $ 16 to all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the description :"and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008;"

Well, I think their $16 million just blew up.
Since bittorrent is a P2P service, I'm sure any one who used bittorrent AT ALL "attempted to use Comcast service" to download something.
Personally, I think they should have to pay $16 to all of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535266</id>
	<title>Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Blizzard updater is an implementation of the BitTorrent protocol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Blizzard updater is an implementation of the BitTorrent protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Blizzard updater is an implementation of the BitTorrent protocol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536504</id>
	<title>CRTC &amp; Bell</title>
	<author>Paspanique</author>
	<datestamp>1259777160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>16 millions might not be much for a big company like comcast and 16$ per user might not be much for 1 to receive, but at least your FCC didn't give it's blessing to full throttling like our CRTC gave to Bell. Bell owns the majority of infrastructure and if you are using any one company using DSL, you're being !&amp;*^@ over by the monopoly Bell is...</htmltext>
<tokenext>16 millions might not be much for a big company like comcast and 16 $ per user might not be much for 1 to receive , but at least your FCC did n't give it 's blessing to full throttling like our CRTC gave to Bell .
Bell owns the majority of infrastructure and if you are using any one company using DSL , you 're being ! &amp; * ^ @ over by the monopoly Bell is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>16 millions might not be much for a big company like comcast and 16$ per user might not be much for 1 to receive, but at least your FCC didn't give it's blessing to full throttling like our CRTC gave to Bell.
Bell owns the majority of infrastructure and if you are using any one company using DSL, you're being !&amp;*^@ over by the monopoly Bell is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535346</id>
	<title>its a trap</title>
	<author>jambarama</author>
	<datestamp>1259770320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> You may be eligible for up to $16 restitution if you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be eligible for up to $ 16 restitution if you live in the United States or its Territories , have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account , and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares , BitTorrent , eDonkey , FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1 , 2006 to December 31 , 2008</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You may be eligible for up to $16 restitution if you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537564</id>
	<title>Re:Gotta love it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's volume baby, that's how you brake the law and only pay a penitence.  What you're doing wrong is not a high enough volume of crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's volume baby , that 's how you brake the law and only pay a penitence .
What you 're doing wrong is not a high enough volume of crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's volume baby, that's how you brake the law and only pay a penitence.
What you're doing wrong is not a high enough volume of crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682</id>
	<title>Specific programs? That's a load of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols</p></div></blockquote><p>Ok, so if your Blizzard updater got throttled, you can't say a word? You have to sign a paper confessing that you used one of those specific P2P client, where 99\% of the users are downloading copyrighted material?</p><p>Yeah, there's nothing to fear, comrade, come in and sign this paper for your huge 16$ check.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares , BitTorrent , eDonkey , FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocolsOk , so if your Blizzard updater got throttled , you ca n't say a word ?
You have to sign a paper confessing that you used one of those specific P2P client , where 99 \ % of the users are downloading copyrighted material ? Yeah , there 's nothing to fear , comrade , come in and sign this paper for your huge 16 $ check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocolsOk, so if your Blizzard updater got throttled, you can't say a word?
You have to sign a paper confessing that you used one of those specific P2P client, where 99\% of the users are downloading copyrighted material?Yeah, there's nothing to fear, comrade, come in and sign this paper for your huge 16$ check.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30543310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30539700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0134259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30539700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30543310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30537182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30538280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30535528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0134259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30534574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0134259.30536866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
