<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_30_2118250</id>
	<title>Quantum Encryption Implementation Broken</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262165820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.eff.org/support" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"Professor Johannes Skaar's Quantum Hacking group at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian\_University\_of\_Science\_and\_Technology">NTNU</a> have <a href="http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/">found a new way to break quantum encryption</a>.  Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws.  Their technique relies on a particular way of blinding the single photon detectors so that they're able to perform an intercept-resend attack and get a copy of the secret key without giving away the fact that someone is listening.  This attack is not merely theoretical, either.  They have built an eavesdropping device and successfully attacked their own quantum encryption hardware.  More details can be found in their <a href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3576.en.html">conference presentation</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " Professor Johannes Skaar 's Quantum Hacking group at NTNU have found a new way to break quantum encryption .
Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect , real hardware is n't , and they exploit these flaws .
Their technique relies on a particular way of blinding the single photon detectors so that they 're able to perform an intercept-resend attack and get a copy of the secret key without giving away the fact that someone is listening .
This attack is not merely theoretical , either .
They have built an eavesdropping device and successfully attacked their own quantum encryption hardware .
More details can be found in their conference presentation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Professor Johannes Skaar's Quantum Hacking group at NTNU have found a new way to break quantum encryption.
Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws.
Their technique relies on a particular way of blinding the single photon detectors so that they're able to perform an intercept-resend attack and get a copy of the secret key without giving away the fact that someone is listening.
This attack is not merely theoretical, either.
They have built an eavesdropping device and successfully attacked their own quantum encryption hardware.
More details can be found in their conference presentation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600426</id>
	<title>What man can create man can circumvent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To paraphrase E. E. (Doc) Smith.</p><p>What man can create man can circumvent.</p><p>I guess we need a lens...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase E. E. ( Doc ) Smith.What man can create man can circumvent.I guess we need a lens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase E. E. (Doc) Smith.What man can create man can circumvent.I guess we need a lens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912</id>
	<title>Successfully broken before anybody was using it!</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1259836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now <i>that's</i> efficiency for you, folks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's efficiency for you , folks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that's efficiency for you, folks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601174</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you sure that criticism wasn't made specifically as a critique of how automation worked, from the point of view of labor-hours of income that had to be exchanged for a given quantity of goods, specifically <i>in a capitalist society</i> (and, remember, Marx was critiquing 19th Century capitalism, not modern "capitalism" in which every "capitalist" state has -- largely to address the same ills of 19th century capitalism that Marx critiqued -- adopted a wide variety of state programs, many of which are closely related to specific recommendations in the Communist Manifesto.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods</p></div></blockquote><p>Insofar as that is true, how is that a benefit <i>of capitalism</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marx directly claimed that machines can not lower the cost of goods , because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.Are you sure that criticism was n't made specifically as a critique of how automation worked , from the point of view of labor-hours of income that had to be exchanged for a given quantity of goods , specifically in a capitalist society ( and , remember , Marx was critiquing 19th Century capitalism , not modern " capitalism " in which every " capitalist " state has -- largely to address the same ills of 19th century capitalism that Marx critiqued -- adopted a wide variety of state programs , many of which are closely related to specific recommendations in the Communist Manifesto .
) Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goodsInsofar as that is true , how is that a benefit of capitalism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.Are you sure that criticism wasn't made specifically as a critique of how automation worked, from the point of view of labor-hours of income that had to be exchanged for a given quantity of goods, specifically in a capitalist society (and, remember, Marx was critiquing 19th Century capitalism, not modern "capitalism" in which every "capitalist" state has -- largely to address the same ills of 19th century capitalism that Marx critiqued -- adopted a wide variety of state programs, many of which are closely related to specific recommendations in the Communist Manifesto.
)Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goodsInsofar as that is true, how is that a benefit of capitalism?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And Communism works, IN THEORY.</p></div></blockquote><p>No it doesn't.  The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.  This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but <i>was known in advance</i> to fail for larger groups.  The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
</p><p>As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker.  He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Communism works , IN THEORY.No it does n't .
The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members .
This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other ( families and 'communes ' ) , but was known in advance to fail for larger groups .
The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior .
As was Marx 's derivation of the value of the worker .
He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement ( arranged by the entrepreneur ) of worker , raw materials , and the means of production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Communism works, IN THEORY.No it doesn't.
The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.
This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but was known in advance to fail for larger groups.
The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker.
He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600700</id>
	<title>Not really...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259841960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying that this exploit "defeated" quantum encryption is like saying that a bank is not secure because someone got stuck up walking home after making a withdrawal.</p><p>The summary admits as much by saying "Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't".</p><p>Does anyone think that a laboratory quantum encryption setup is exactly the hardware that quantum encryption implementations are going to have when they are commercially available?</p><p>I've seen this before, where someone claims that product X or Y is "not secure" because they were able to obtain a passphrase via social engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that this exploit " defeated " quantum encryption is like saying that a bank is not secure because someone got stuck up walking home after making a withdrawal.The summary admits as much by saying " Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect , real hardware is n't " .Does anyone think that a laboratory quantum encryption setup is exactly the hardware that quantum encryption implementations are going to have when they are commercially available ? I 've seen this before , where someone claims that product X or Y is " not secure " because they were able to obtain a passphrase via social engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that this exploit "defeated" quantum encryption is like saying that a bank is not secure because someone got stuck up walking home after making a withdrawal.The summary admits as much by saying "Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't".Does anyone think that a laboratory quantum encryption setup is exactly the hardware that quantum encryption implementations are going to have when they are commercially available?I've seen this before, where someone claims that product X or Y is "not secure" because they were able to obtain a passphrase via social engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600386</id>
	<title>Re:The Theory Complex</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1259840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OR better yet... a "hardware override"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OR better yet... a " hardware override " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OR better yet... a "hardware override"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076</id>
	<title>The Theory Complex</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1259837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know that theory can be notoriously variable when put into practice. In theory, quantum in particular, your wave function places your probability of spontaneously appearing in a parallel universe as magnificantly insignificant, yet its a "theorhetically possible". Knowing such, it should not be a surprise when such a powerful and not fully-understood "proof-of-concept" implementation is shown to be flawed, there are things we cannot master, and possibilities that cannot be ruled out.  No security measure will ever be truly "perfect".<br>
<br>
The best password encryption can be broken with a hard-hack, Louisville Sluggers provide a great brute-force technique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that theory can be notoriously variable when put into practice .
In theory , quantum in particular , your wave function places your probability of spontaneously appearing in a parallel universe as magnificantly insignificant , yet its a " theorhetically possible " .
Knowing such , it should not be a surprise when such a powerful and not fully-understood " proof-of-concept " implementation is shown to be flawed , there are things we can not master , and possibilities that can not be ruled out .
No security measure will ever be truly " perfect " .
The best password encryption can be broken with a hard-hack , Louisville Sluggers provide a great brute-force technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that theory can be notoriously variable when put into practice.
In theory, quantum in particular, your wave function places your probability of spontaneously appearing in a parallel universe as magnificantly insignificant, yet its a "theorhetically possible".
Knowing such, it should not be a surprise when such a powerful and not fully-understood "proof-of-concept" implementation is shown to be flawed, there are things we cannot master, and possibilities that cannot be ruled out.
No security measure will ever be truly "perfect".
The best password encryption can be broken with a hard-hack, Louisville Sluggers provide a great brute-force technique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600888</id>
	<title>Re:Fond memories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like I cared about being trendy, I almost despised that back then, which you can also notice by my haircut or, more precisely, by lack of one. You almost guessed about the jacket, it's a Soviet product from '92 or so. Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like I cared about being trendy , I almost despised that back then , which you can also notice by my haircut or , more precisely , by lack of one .
You almost guessed about the jacket , it 's a Soviet product from '92 or so .
Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like I cared about being trendy, I almost despised that back then, which you can also notice by my haircut or, more precisely, by lack of one.
You almost guessed about the jacket, it's a Soviet product from '92 or so.
Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601898</id>
	<title>Taking the least publishable unit to the extreme</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1259851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Build quantum encryption system with a security flaw in the implementation.<br>2. Publish!<br>3. Exploit the flaw.<br>4. Publish!<br>5. Fix the flaw.<br>6. Publish!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Build quantum encryption system with a security flaw in the implementation.2 .
Publish ! 3. Exploit the flaw.4 .
Publish ! 5. Fix the flaw.6 .
Publish !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Build quantum encryption system with a security flaw in the implementation.2.
Publish!3. Exploit the flaw.4.
Publish!5. Fix the flaw.6.
Publish!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601304</id>
	<title>Re:Fond memories</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1259846280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy shit, if you tell me you weren't listening to Bon Jovi's <i>Slippery When Wet</i> while wearing that outfit...then we all know you are full of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , if you tell me you were n't listening to Bon Jovi 's Slippery When Wet while wearing that outfit...then we all know you are full of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, if you tell me you weren't listening to Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet while wearing that outfit...then we all know you are full of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599944</id>
	<title>Broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one way to look at this story, the quantum encryption may or may not be broken, or maybe partially so, so both cases could be true at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one way to look at this story , the quantum encryption may or may not be broken , or maybe partially so , so both cases could be true at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one way to look at this story, the quantum encryption may or may not be broken, or maybe partially so, so both cases could be true at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048</id>
	<title>I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect"</p><p>And Communism works, IN THEORY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect " And Communism works , IN THEORY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect"And Communism works, IN THEORY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1259839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.  The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time.  Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.  Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living <i>improves continuously over time</i> despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.</p><p>At any given point in time, the only reason capitalism does any better job of creating a "synergistic arrangement of worker, raw materials, and the means of production" is that capitalism self-corrects for corruption faster (companies fail faster than governments).  In practice this is a minor factor as successful companies quickly infiltrate government to create regulations that raise barriers to competition (markets are never free for long).</p><p>Over generations, however, the advance of technology is <i>huge</i> - far more important that the distribution of wealth to one's standard of living.  And free markets (to the exten they exist) are far and away the best stimulus for new technology.  This is why established firms so often seek government regulation: to prevent (or at least slow) disruptive technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Marx 's main flaw was in how he valued technology .
The man was n't a starry-eyed idiot , but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time .
Marx directly claimed that machines can not lower the cost of goods , because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced .
Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods , so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.At any given point in time , the only reason capitalism does any better job of creating a " synergistic arrangement of worker , raw materials , and the means of production " is that capitalism self-corrects for corruption faster ( companies fail faster than governments ) .
In practice this is a minor factor as successful companies quickly infiltrate government to create regulations that raise barriers to competition ( markets are never free for long ) .Over generations , however , the advance of technology is huge - far more important that the distribution of wealth to one 's standard of living .
And free markets ( to the exten they exist ) are far and away the best stimulus for new technology .
This is why established firms so often seek government regulation : to prevent ( or at least slow ) disruptive technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.
The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time.
Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.
Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.At any given point in time, the only reason capitalism does any better job of creating a "synergistic arrangement of worker, raw materials, and the means of production" is that capitalism self-corrects for corruption faster (companies fail faster than governments).
In practice this is a minor factor as successful companies quickly infiltrate government to create regulations that raise barriers to competition (markets are never free for long).Over generations, however, the advance of technology is huge - far more important that the distribution of wealth to one's standard of living.
And free markets (to the exten they exist) are far and away the best stimulus for new technology.
This is why established firms so often seek government regulation: to prevent (or at least slow) disruptive technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602600</id>
	<title>Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1259858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I raise you a Vigenere - used by the Confederates after it was successfully broken by Babbage.</p><p>(Also, apparently they changed the password twice during the course of the war.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I raise you a Vigenere - used by the Confederates after it was successfully broken by Babbage .
( Also , apparently they changed the password twice during the course of the war .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I raise you a Vigenere - used by the Confederates after it was successfully broken by Babbage.
(Also, apparently they changed the password twice during the course of the war.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600392</id>
	<title>Should have gone wireless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...oh, wait a second...nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...oh , wait a second...nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...oh, wait a second...nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600196</id>
	<title>Stupid ass can't hack or nothin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got norton.</p><p>[in before people who don't get the reference]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got norton .
[ in before people who do n't get the reference ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got norton.
[in before people who don't get the reference]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603854</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262254860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.</p></div><p>I would have though that Marx's main flaw was that he saw the problem of the workers not receiving the fruits of their labor and tried to solve it by implementing a system in which you did not own the fruits of your labor. As such, communism completes the problem it sets out to solve.</p><p>From a perspective of software engineering, the equivalent would be solving file corruption by preventing file creation. Now that filthy capitalist operating system can't destroy parts of the files!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Marx 's main flaw was in how he valued technology.I would have though that Marx 's main flaw was that he saw the problem of the workers not receiving the fruits of their labor and tried to solve it by implementing a system in which you did not own the fruits of your labor .
As such , communism completes the problem it sets out to solve.From a perspective of software engineering , the equivalent would be solving file corruption by preventing file creation .
Now that filthy capitalist operating system ca n't destroy parts of the files !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.I would have though that Marx's main flaw was that he saw the problem of the workers not receiving the fruits of their labor and tried to solve it by implementing a system in which you did not own the fruits of your labor.
As such, communism completes the problem it sets out to solve.From a perspective of software engineering, the equivalent would be solving file corruption by preventing file creation.
Now that filthy capitalist operating system can't destroy parts of the files!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600752</id>
	<title>Re:Intercept-Resend Attack</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1259842320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man in the middle is merely attempting to read the information as it passes by. With Quantum encryption, reading the key could potentially change its value. (Hard to explain, but yes thats how it works).</p><p>An intercept and Resend is rather taking the information as it comes in, not reading it, but duplicating it (this would be the tricky part, duplicating something without reading it) and then resending the information out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man in the middle is merely attempting to read the information as it passes by .
With Quantum encryption , reading the key could potentially change its value .
( Hard to explain , but yes thats how it works ) .An intercept and Resend is rather taking the information as it comes in , not reading it , but duplicating it ( this would be the tricky part , duplicating something without reading it ) and then resending the information out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man in the middle is merely attempting to read the information as it passes by.
With Quantum encryption, reading the key could potentially change its value.
(Hard to explain, but yes thats how it works).An intercept and Resend is rather taking the information as it comes in, not reading it, but duplicating it (this would be the tricky part, duplicating something without reading it) and then resending the information out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600738</id>
	<title>You didn't RTFA, did you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?</p><p>Because it's a very technically impressive hack that breaks the guarantees we love quantum encryption for (the idea that we can detect eavesdropping) and it does it in a fairly general way, using a weakness in an important piece of hardware (the single photon detectors) that's used in many quantum cryptography setups.</p><p>It may not be surprising to you, but the technology used isn't so trivial as you make it sound.  Read their conference presentation if you want to see.  The only reason I didn't write more of it into the summary is because I didn't want to butcher all the explanations when I could let you read the original.</p><p>- IDBIIP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of ? Because it 's a very technically impressive hack that breaks the guarantees we love quantum encryption for ( the idea that we can detect eavesdropping ) and it does it in a fairly general way , using a weakness in an important piece of hardware ( the single photon detectors ) that 's used in many quantum cryptography setups.It may not be surprising to you , but the technology used is n't so trivial as you make it sound .
Read their conference presentation if you want to see .
The only reason I did n't write more of it into the summary is because I did n't want to butcher all the explanations when I could let you read the original.- IDBIIP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?Because it's a very technically impressive hack that breaks the guarantees we love quantum encryption for (the idea that we can detect eavesdropping) and it does it in a fairly general way, using a weakness in an important piece of hardware (the single photon detectors) that's used in many quantum cryptography setups.It may not be surprising to you, but the technology used isn't so trivial as you make it sound.
Read their conference presentation if you want to see.
The only reason I didn't write more of it into the summary is because I didn't want to butcher all the explanations when I could let you read the original.- IDBIIP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266</id>
	<title>Re:Fond memories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hehe, that master student you will see at the second linked page is me <strong>ten years ago</strong></p></div> </blockquote><p>Even so, blue jean jackets have been out of style since the 80s, dude.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , that master student you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago Even so , blue jean jackets have been out of style since the 80s , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, that master student you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago Even so, blue jean jackets have been out of style since the 80s, dude.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600934</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that by saying that communism doesn't work (from a capitalism view) is saying that it actually does work.</p><p>If you take a look at what you just said; by creating incentives you drive human behavior.</p><p>I know it's hard to wrap your head around it and see it both ways if your own behavior has been modulated in either direction, I couldn't begin to explain it and I wouldn't if I could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that by saying that communism does n't work ( from a capitalism view ) is saying that it actually does work.If you take a look at what you just said ; by creating incentives you drive human behavior.I know it 's hard to wrap your head around it and see it both ways if your own behavior has been modulated in either direction , I could n't begin to explain it and I would n't if I could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that by saying that communism doesn't work (from a capitalism view) is saying that it actually does work.If you take a look at what you just said; by creating incentives you drive human behavior.I know it's hard to wrap your head around it and see it both ways if your own behavior has been modulated in either direction, I couldn't begin to explain it and I wouldn't if I could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602084</id>
	<title>Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1259853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't Switzerland using this form of quantum crypto for some election or something?</p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/2211205" title="slashdot.org">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/2211205</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Switzerland using this form of quantum crypto for some election or something ? http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/10/11/2211205 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Switzerland using this form of quantum crypto for some election or something?http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/2211205 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599956</id>
	<title>lame... silly kids.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>broken even easier by capturing the data prior to encryption. HEH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>broken even easier by capturing the data prior to encryption .
HEH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>broken even easier by capturing the data prior to encryption.
HEH.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928</id>
	<title>And they call it...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1259836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Schr&#246;dinger's Hack!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schr   dinger 's Hack !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schrödinger's Hack!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here. Move along.</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1259837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?  Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of ?
Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?
Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601068</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, actually, it doesn't. Like democracy (which it is, in a sense, an analog of, addressing economic rights instead of political rights) it relies on the idea that humans will work for the betterment of <i>themselves, individually</i>, so that widely and equally distributing power among the population will result in the broadest possible benefit. As with democracy, one of the places that communism breaks down in practice (and, in fact, is "broken by design" in all real-world attempts to implement anything called "Communism", which are based not directly on Marx and Engels work, but on Lenin's adaptation which introduce the idea of a priviledged self-selected elite working -- in Leninist theory -- on behalf of the masses, because it was intended to work in places that hadn't met the prerequisites Marx had identified for a Communist revolution. This replacement of the "dictatorship <i>of</i> the proletariat" with what amounted to a dictatorship <i>on behalf of</i> the proletariat was pretty contrary to the whole idea of Communism, and in theory as well as in practice is very similar to fascist corporatism.)</p><blockquote><div><p>The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.</p></div></blockquote><p>The critique of capitalism at the center of Marx's communism relies, in part, on that fact; it is particularly central to the idea that the "alienation of labor" is a social problem as well as a personal problem for workers. It is true that it is a common criticism (from very early times -- the criticism is specifically addressed in the Communist Manifesto) that Communism would do away with personal incentive because it would abolish property. But, while the Manifesto talks about eliminating "bourgeois property", it specifically draws an analogy to the destruction of feudal property with the creation of "bourgeois property". The Manifesto, on its own, lays out some of how Communists sought to transform the model of property -- particularly, Communists sought an end to private ownership of <i>land</i> in favor of renting from the State, and to end the heritability of wealth; just as what Communists refer to as "bourgeois" property involved the transition to entailments and other encumbered forms of ownership as the norm for property rights -- particularly in land -- the Communist model of property was essentially and end to fee simple ownership and other <i>permanent</i> rights as the dominant norm in favor of life or (particularly in the case of real property) term interests. The Manifesto clearly sees the mode of property it adopts as providing personal economic incentives -- and actually providing personal economic incentives that are better at promoting economic progress than those produced by "borgeois" property just as the "bourgeois" property model was seen as doing compared to feudal property. One can certainly argue that the Communist model is <i>wrong</i> about how the personal incentives would work out in the environment its programs proposed, but it is clearly wrong to say that the theory of Communism failed to recognize that personal economic incentives are a primary driver of human behavior, since that observation is at the center of Communist theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members .
No , actually , it does n't .
Like democracy ( which it is , in a sense , an analog of , addressing economic rights instead of political rights ) it relies on the idea that humans will work for the betterment of themselves , individually , so that widely and equally distributing power among the population will result in the broadest possible benefit .
As with democracy , one of the places that communism breaks down in practice ( and , in fact , is " broken by design " in all real-world attempts to implement anything called " Communism " , which are based not directly on Marx and Engels work , but on Lenin 's adaptation which introduce the idea of a priviledged self-selected elite working -- in Leninist theory -- on behalf of the masses , because it was intended to work in places that had n't met the prerequisites Marx had identified for a Communist revolution .
This replacement of the " dictatorship of the proletariat " with what amounted to a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat was pretty contrary to the whole idea of Communism , and in theory as well as in practice is very similar to fascist corporatism .
) The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.The critique of capitalism at the center of Marx 's communism relies , in part , on that fact ; it is particularly central to the idea that the " alienation of labor " is a social problem as well as a personal problem for workers .
It is true that it is a common criticism ( from very early times -- the criticism is specifically addressed in the Communist Manifesto ) that Communism would do away with personal incentive because it would abolish property .
But , while the Manifesto talks about eliminating " bourgeois property " , it specifically draws an analogy to the destruction of feudal property with the creation of " bourgeois property " .
The Manifesto , on its own , lays out some of how Communists sought to transform the model of property -- particularly , Communists sought an end to private ownership of land in favor of renting from the State , and to end the heritability of wealth ; just as what Communists refer to as " bourgeois " property involved the transition to entailments and other encumbered forms of ownership as the norm for property rights -- particularly in land -- the Communist model of property was essentially and end to fee simple ownership and other permanent rights as the dominant norm in favor of life or ( particularly in the case of real property ) term interests .
The Manifesto clearly sees the mode of property it adopts as providing personal economic incentives -- and actually providing personal economic incentives that are better at promoting economic progress than those produced by " borgeois " property just as the " bourgeois " property model was seen as doing compared to feudal property .
One can certainly argue that the Communist model is wrong about how the personal incentives would work out in the environment its programs proposed , but it is clearly wrong to say that the theory of Communism failed to recognize that personal economic incentives are a primary driver of human behavior , since that observation is at the center of Communist theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.
No, actually, it doesn't.
Like democracy (which it is, in a sense, an analog of, addressing economic rights instead of political rights) it relies on the idea that humans will work for the betterment of themselves, individually, so that widely and equally distributing power among the population will result in the broadest possible benefit.
As with democracy, one of the places that communism breaks down in practice (and, in fact, is "broken by design" in all real-world attempts to implement anything called "Communism", which are based not directly on Marx and Engels work, but on Lenin's adaptation which introduce the idea of a priviledged self-selected elite working -- in Leninist theory -- on behalf of the masses, because it was intended to work in places that hadn't met the prerequisites Marx had identified for a Communist revolution.
This replacement of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with what amounted to a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat was pretty contrary to the whole idea of Communism, and in theory as well as in practice is very similar to fascist corporatism.
)The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.The critique of capitalism at the center of Marx's communism relies, in part, on that fact; it is particularly central to the idea that the "alienation of labor" is a social problem as well as a personal problem for workers.
It is true that it is a common criticism (from very early times -- the criticism is specifically addressed in the Communist Manifesto) that Communism would do away with personal incentive because it would abolish property.
But, while the Manifesto talks about eliminating "bourgeois property", it specifically draws an analogy to the destruction of feudal property with the creation of "bourgeois property".
The Manifesto, on its own, lays out some of how Communists sought to transform the model of property -- particularly, Communists sought an end to private ownership of land in favor of renting from the State, and to end the heritability of wealth; just as what Communists refer to as "bourgeois" property involved the transition to entailments and other encumbered forms of ownership as the norm for property rights -- particularly in land -- the Communist model of property was essentially and end to fee simple ownership and other permanent rights as the dominant norm in favor of life or (particularly in the case of real property) term interests.
The Manifesto clearly sees the mode of property it adopts as providing personal economic incentives -- and actually providing personal economic incentives that are better at promoting economic progress than those produced by "borgeois" property just as the "bourgeois" property model was seen as doing compared to feudal property.
One can certainly argue that the Communist model is wrong about how the personal incentives would work out in the environment its programs proposed, but it is clearly wrong to say that the theory of Communism failed to recognize that personal economic incentives are a primary driver of human behavior, since that observation is at the center of Communist theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601918</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1259851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism stimulates technological advance better than any system that has ever been tried, largely because it combines a huge incentive for turning new ideas into products with the means of raising the capital to do so.</p><p>At it's root, capitalism is simply a system for determining who controls the means of production: assigning that control to those who have done well at that task in the past (because wealth is the primary means for gaining control of the means of production, and making good decisions about the use of the means of production is the primary means for increasing wealth).  Capitalism has strong positive feedback for those who choose to produce products that consumers actually want, which strongly correlates with finding ways to increase the consumer's standard of living for the same amount of consumer wealth.</p><p>In other words, there's a huge incentive under capitalism to find new ways to improve the standard of living of your consumers (because that sells really well), and people who do so gain more control over the means of production over time (because you buy the means of production with money, instead of political favoritism).  It's a great feedback loop, though in practice is always subverted to some degree by the political favoritism thing as free markets never stay free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism stimulates technological advance better than any system that has ever been tried , largely because it combines a huge incentive for turning new ideas into products with the means of raising the capital to do so.At it 's root , capitalism is simply a system for determining who controls the means of production : assigning that control to those who have done well at that task in the past ( because wealth is the primary means for gaining control of the means of production , and making good decisions about the use of the means of production is the primary means for increasing wealth ) .
Capitalism has strong positive feedback for those who choose to produce products that consumers actually want , which strongly correlates with finding ways to increase the consumer 's standard of living for the same amount of consumer wealth.In other words , there 's a huge incentive under capitalism to find new ways to improve the standard of living of your consumers ( because that sells really well ) , and people who do so gain more control over the means of production over time ( because you buy the means of production with money , instead of political favoritism ) .
It 's a great feedback loop , though in practice is always subverted to some degree by the political favoritism thing as free markets never stay free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism stimulates technological advance better than any system that has ever been tried, largely because it combines a huge incentive for turning new ideas into products with the means of raising the capital to do so.At it's root, capitalism is simply a system for determining who controls the means of production: assigning that control to those who have done well at that task in the past (because wealth is the primary means for gaining control of the means of production, and making good decisions about the use of the means of production is the primary means for increasing wealth).
Capitalism has strong positive feedback for those who choose to produce products that consumers actually want, which strongly correlates with finding ways to increase the consumer's standard of living for the same amount of consumer wealth.In other words, there's a huge incentive under capitalism to find new ways to improve the standard of living of your consumers (because that sells really well), and people who do so gain more control over the means of production over time (because you buy the means of production with money, instead of political favoritism).
It's a great feedback loop, though in practice is always subverted to some degree by the political favoritism thing as free markets never stay free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600072</id>
	<title>Re:This is why we can't have nice things</title>
	<author>jinxed\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point is to make sure the implementation can't be broken BEFORE they distribute it and have to recall/replace/handle frivolous lawsuits/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point is to make sure the implementation ca n't be broken BEFORE they distribute it and have to recall/replace/handle frivolous lawsuits/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point is to make sure the implementation can't be broken BEFORE they distribute it and have to recall/replace/handle frivolous lawsuits/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610360</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1262257560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>And Communism works, IN THEORY.</p></div></blockquote><p>No it doesn't.  The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.  This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but <i>was known in advance</i> to fail for larger groups.  The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.</p><p>As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker.  He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.</p></div><p>You're wrong on both counts. As for the first, Marx merely said that it would be easier to work for the common good, as well as more efficient, in the long run. He wasn't proposing that humans worked for others for the hell of it, but because it would be the obvious smartest choice for themselves. Smarter than working for a capitalist who'd underpay you. And any self-employed entrepreneur knows it.</p><p>As for the second, let's do a little experiment: remove the worker from the equation and see how much value the synergistic arrangement can add. Now remove the capitalist from the equation and see how much value the worker can add with the materials and the machine. For bonus points, figure out what happens when you remove the machine or the materials or add a few marketeers and laywers for extra fun into the synergistic arrangement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Communism works , IN THEORY.No it does n't .
The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members .
This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other ( families and 'communes ' ) , but was known in advance to fail for larger groups .
The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.As was Marx 's derivation of the value of the worker .
He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement ( arranged by the entrepreneur ) of worker , raw materials , and the means of production.You 're wrong on both counts .
As for the first , Marx merely said that it would be easier to work for the common good , as well as more efficient , in the long run .
He was n't proposing that humans worked for others for the hell of it , but because it would be the obvious smartest choice for themselves .
Smarter than working for a capitalist who 'd underpay you .
And any self-employed entrepreneur knows it.As for the second , let 's do a little experiment : remove the worker from the equation and see how much value the synergistic arrangement can add .
Now remove the capitalist from the equation and see how much value the worker can add with the materials and the machine .
For bonus points , figure out what happens when you remove the machine or the materials or add a few marketeers and laywers for extra fun into the synergistic arrangement : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Communism works, IN THEORY.No it doesn't.
The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.
This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but was known in advance to fail for larger groups.
The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker.
He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.You're wrong on both counts.
As for the first, Marx merely said that it would be easier to work for the common good, as well as more efficient, in the long run.
He wasn't proposing that humans worked for others for the hell of it, but because it would be the obvious smartest choice for themselves.
Smarter than working for a capitalist who'd underpay you.
And any self-employed entrepreneur knows it.As for the second, let's do a little experiment: remove the worker from the equation and see how much value the synergistic arrangement can add.
Now remove the capitalist from the equation and see how much value the worker can add with the materials and the machine.
For bonus points, figure out what happens when you remove the machine or the materials or add a few marketeers and laywers for extra fun into the synergistic arrangement :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600134</id>
	<title>Cat in the Hack</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1259838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's ok, the message hasn't actually been decoded by a third party as long as you don't read it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ok , the message has n't actually been decoded by a third party as long as you do n't read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ok, the message hasn't actually been decoded by a third party as long as you don't read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600326</id>
	<title>Intercept-Resend Attack</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1259839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I have heard this term before. How does an "intercept-resend attack" differ from a man-in-the-middle attack?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I have heard this term before .
How does an " intercept-resend attack " differ from a man-in-the-middle attack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I have heard this term before.
How does an "intercept-resend attack" differ from a man-in-the-middle attack?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603544</id>
	<title>Er...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262290200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was done a while ago. My understanding of Quantum Physics/Cryptography is admittedly under par, but from what I understand they're able to send fake data (via photons) that confuse the person that's doing the wiretapping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was done a while ago .
My understanding of Quantum Physics/Cryptography is admittedly under par , but from what I understand they 're able to send fake data ( via photons ) that confuse the person that 's doing the wiretapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was done a while ago.
My understanding of Quantum Physics/Cryptography is admittedly under par, but from what I understand they're able to send fake data (via photons) that confuse the person that's doing the wiretapping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601052</id>
	<title>is quantum encryption  really theoretically perfec</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1259844420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum encryption needs a second channel that isn't vulnerable to man in the middle attack. It doesn't say how to make it, it only says that it's needed. This channel is used to transmit the polarization used, and although it doesn't transmit information related to the unencrypted data, the entire algorithm depends on the integrity of this channel not being attacked (sniffed it's OK)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p> In my opinion saying that quantum encryption is theoretically perfect is misleading, as there is no probe that this secure channel can be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum encryption needs a second channel that is n't vulnerable to man in the middle attack .
It does n't say how to make it , it only says that it 's needed .
This channel is used to transmit the polarization used , and although it does n't transmit information related to the unencrypted data , the entire algorithm depends on the integrity of this channel not being attacked ( sniffed it 's OK ) .
In my opinion saying that quantum encryption is theoretically perfect is misleading , as there is no probe that this secure channel can be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum encryption needs a second channel that isn't vulnerable to man in the middle attack.
It doesn't say how to make it, it only says that it's needed.
This channel is used to transmit the polarization used, and although it doesn't transmit information related to the unencrypted data, the entire algorithm depends on the integrity of this channel not being attacked (sniffed it's OK) .
In my opinion saying that quantum encryption is theoretically perfect is misleading, as there is no probe that this secure channel can be made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600330</id>
	<title>speaking of "being ahead of the curve"</title>
	<author>porky\_pig\_jr</author>
	<datestamp>1259839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't have a quantum computer to provide the quantum encryption yet, but the encryption is already broken.</p><p>I think it's time for my beauty rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have a quantum computer to provide the quantum encryption yet , but the encryption is already broken.I think it 's time for my beauty rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have a quantum computer to provide the quantum encryption yet, but the encryption is already broken.I think it's time for my beauty rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600544</id>
	<title>quantum encryption broken by blinding detectors...</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1259840880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Truly nothing to see here.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly nothing to see here.I 'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly nothing to see here.I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600694</id>
	<title>In other words.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1259841900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect...</p></div><p>Most things that are perfect *are* theoretical.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws.</p></div><p>Most modern encryption isn't cracked by breaking the technology used to encrypt it. Security is only as secure as the pain tolerance of the person who knows the PIN, or the size of the visor that is suppose to hide the numbers you press from the person in line behind you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect...Most things that are perfect * are * theoretical .
...real hardware is n't , and they exploit these flaws.Most modern encryption is n't cracked by breaking the technology used to encrypt it .
Security is only as secure as the pain tolerance of the person who knows the PIN , or the size of the visor that is suppose to hide the numbers you press from the person in line behind you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect...Most things that are perfect *are* theoretical.
...real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws.Most modern encryption isn't cracked by breaking the technology used to encrypt it.
Security is only as secure as the pain tolerance of the person who knows the PIN, or the size of the visor that is suppose to hide the numbers you press from the person in line behind you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600058</id>
	<title>Re:Broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And not only must the encryption work with hardware which is very small, it must also work with hardware which is very large.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not only must the encryption work with hardware which is very small , it must also work with hardware which is very large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not only must the encryption work with hardware which is very small, it must also work with hardware which is very large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600902</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;And Communism works, IN THEORY.<br>&gt;No it doesn't</p><p>Agreed, and for yet another reason: even if humans are all saints<br>and DO happily sacrifice for society, the problem of coordinating<br>dispersed knowledge can't be solved.  For details, google<br>"calculation debate".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; And Communism works , IN THEORY. &gt; No it doesn'tAgreed , and for yet another reason : even if humans are all saintsand DO happily sacrifice for society , the problem of coordinatingdispersed knowledge ca n't be solved .
For details , google " calculation debate " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;And Communism works, IN THEORY.&gt;No it doesn'tAgreed, and for yet another reason: even if humans are all saintsand DO happily sacrifice for society, the problem of coordinatingdispersed knowledge can't be solved.
For details, google"calculation debate".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602610</id>
	<title>Re:This is why we can't have nice things</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1259858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But encryption technologies are special toys; they're <em>made</em> to be broken, see. Consider them as pinatas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But encryption technologies are special toys ; they 're made to be broken , see .
Consider them as pinatas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But encryption technologies are special toys; they're made to be broken, see.
Consider them as pinatas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010</id>
	<title>Fond memories</title>
	<author>temcat</author>
	<datestamp>1259837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hehe, that <a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/stock/a60-19.html" title="vad1.com">master student</a> [vad1.com] you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , that master student [ vad1.com ] you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, that master student [vad1.com] you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600132</id>
	<title>Re:And they call it...</title>
	<author>dazjorz</author>
	<datestamp>1259838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until you check your terminal, it's both broken...and it isn't... You both have the plaintext, and you don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you check your terminal , it 's both broken...and it is n't... You both have the plaintext , and you do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you check your terminal, it's both broken...and it isn't... You both have the plaintext, and you don't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610516</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1262258640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.  The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time.  Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.  Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living <i>improves continuously over time</i> despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.</p></div><p>Actually, a lot of Marx's writings are about automation being crucial to both capitalism and communism as it drives down the cost of production. Also, since any activity in capitalism is itself subject to the same laws, prices will go down as more capitalists produce the same machinery, using other machines: the skill and cost of labor to create new machines go down, hence their value and in the end their price also go down. See 'wages, price and profit' for details.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Marx 's main flaw was in how he valued technology .
The man was n't a starry-eyed idiot , but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time .
Marx directly claimed that machines can not lower the cost of goods , because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced .
Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods , so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.Actually , a lot of Marx 's writings are about automation being crucial to both capitalism and communism as it drives down the cost of production .
Also , since any activity in capitalism is itself subject to the same laws , prices will go down as more capitalists produce the same machinery , using other machines : the skill and cost of labor to create new machines go down , hence their value and in the end their price also go down .
See 'wages , price and profit ' for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.
The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time.
Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.
Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.Actually, a lot of Marx's writings are about automation being crucial to both capitalism and communism as it drives down the cost of production.
Also, since any activity in capitalism is itself subject to the same laws, prices will go down as more capitalists produce the same machinery, using other machines: the skill and cost of labor to create new machines go down, hence their value and in the end their price also go down.
See 'wages, price and profit' for details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602068</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here. Move along.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259852880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?  Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.</p></div><p> OK, so they broke it based on the hardware. If something is theoretically unbreakable but beakable in practice, then its an implementation flaw... Better hardware is needed...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of ?
Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time .
OK , so they broke it based on the hardware .
If something is theoretically unbreakable but beakable in practice , then its an implementation flaw... Better hardware is needed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?
Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.
OK, so they broke it based on the hardware.
If something is theoretically unbreakable but beakable in practice, then its an implementation flaw... Better hardware is needed...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603808</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>SparafucileMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262253660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the dumbest explanation of communism I've ever heard. You must be an academic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the dumbest explanation of communism I 've ever heard .
You must be an academic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the dumbest explanation of communism I've ever heard.
You must be an academic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602380</id>
	<title>Re:The Theory Complex</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1259856180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if applied to the head. That's why they call it <i>rubber hose cryptograhy</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if applied to the head .
That 's why they call it rubber hose cryptograhy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if applied to the head.
That's why they call it rubber hose cryptograhy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603542</id>
	<title>Quantum encryption ?</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1262290200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could we stop it calling him quantum encryption and call it by what it is : Secure quantum transmission ? Encryption / decryption involve changing a message with a key as to make it non-decipherable. Quantum "encryption" do no such a things, it only allow sending a emssage from point A to point B , while warning you if somebody eavesdrop (at least in theory...). You could push a message in plain text through such a channel, or a KEY, both can be perfectly read by the eavesdropped, but the sender/receiver pair will know it has been caught. There is nothing encrypted whatsoever here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we stop it calling him quantum encryption and call it by what it is : Secure quantum transmission ?
Encryption / decryption involve changing a message with a key as to make it non-decipherable .
Quantum " encryption " do no such a things , it only allow sending a emssage from point A to point B , while warning you if somebody eavesdrop ( at least in theory... ) .
You could push a message in plain text through such a channel , or a KEY , both can be perfectly read by the eavesdropped , but the sender/receiver pair will know it has been caught .
There is nothing encrypted whatsoever here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we stop it calling him quantum encryption and call it by what it is : Secure quantum transmission ?
Encryption / decryption involve changing a message with a key as to make it non-decipherable.
Quantum "encryption" do no such a things, it only allow sending a emssage from point A to point B , while warning you if somebody eavesdrop (at least in theory...).
You could push a message in plain text through such a channel, or a KEY, both can be perfectly read by the eavesdropped, but the sender/receiver pair will know it has been caught.
There is nothing encrypted whatsoever here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602796</id>
	<title>I didn't know Slashdot was full of cryptanalysts</title>
	<author>Dwonis</author>
	<datestamp>1259860740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh.  There's an article about cryptography, and suddenly everyone on Slashdot is an expert.</p><p>I must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
There 's an article about cryptography , and suddenly everyone on Slashdot is an expert.I must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
There's an article about cryptography, and suddenly everyone on Slashdot is an expert.I must be new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914</id>
	<title>This is why we can't have nice things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we please get to play with some of these emerging technologies before someone goes breaking them?

This is why we can't have nice things! You intellectuals and your tinkering....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please get to play with some of these emerging technologies before someone goes breaking them ?
This is why we ca n't have nice things !
You intellectuals and your tinkering... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please get to play with some of these emerging technologies before someone goes breaking them?
This is why we can't have nice things!
You intellectuals and your tinkering....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601690</id>
	<title>Could someone please slowly explain to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone please slowly explain to me why I cannot intercept and regenerate as part of a man in the middle attack.</p><p>In other words, how is it that Alice knows what she is sending, without either setting it in advance or detecting it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please slowly explain to me why I can not intercept and regenerate as part of a man in the middle attack.In other words , how is it that Alice knows what she is sending , without either setting it in advance or detecting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please slowly explain to me why I cannot intercept and regenerate as part of a man in the middle attack.In other words, how is it that Alice knows what she is sending, without either setting it in advance or detecting it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600130</id>
	<title>This is why we can't have nice things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I TOLD YOU NOT TO LOOK AT IT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I TOLD YOU NOT TO LOOK AT IT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I TOLD YOU NOT TO LOOK AT IT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30604432</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.</p></div><p>Which incidentally is also the reason libertarianism doesn't work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.Which incidentally is also the reason libertarianism does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.Which incidentally is also the reason libertarianism doesn't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600624</id>
	<title>Re:And they call it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upon closer inspection you'll find that jokes already dead.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upon closer inspection you 'll find that jokes already dead .
...or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upon closer inspection you'll find that jokes already dead.
...or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600760</id>
	<title>The attack can be defended against easily.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259842380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It uses bright light to blind the single-photon detectors. Determining that your detectors are saturated isn't that hard; if they get saturated, someone's probably performing this attack and you might not want to use the key. In fact, any reasonable QKD scheme should really try to ensure that the detectors are operating properly throughout the key distribution otherwise it's a giant security hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It uses bright light to blind the single-photon detectors .
Determining that your detectors are saturated is n't that hard ; if they get saturated , someone 's probably performing this attack and you might not want to use the key .
In fact , any reasonable QKD scheme should really try to ensure that the detectors are operating properly throughout the key distribution otherwise it 's a giant security hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It uses bright light to blind the single-photon detectors.
Determining that your detectors are saturated isn't that hard; if they get saturated, someone's probably performing this attack and you might not want to use the key.
In fact, any reasonable QKD scheme should really try to ensure that the detectors are operating properly throughout the key distribution otherwise it's a giant security hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600064</id>
	<title>Professor Johannes Skaar's Quantum Hacking group</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is the first group of hackers composed entirely of cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the first group of hackers composed entirely of cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the first group of hackers composed entirely of cats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600260</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here. Move along.</title>
	<author>zmaragdus</author>
	<datestamp>1259839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite so. A good topic to research (in addition to side-channel attacks) for more information on is TEMPEST (protecting against "spurious emmisions" that may leak information). From there you can find information on many, many methods of side-channel attacks. Examples include measuring the emag field from keyboard presses, monitoring CPU times &amp; power consumptions, reading screens in reflections, and many more.</p><p>Again, this article highlights that all the software in the world can't protect against some hardware attacks. (For example, a hardware keylogger between the keyboard and the computer.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite so .
A good topic to research ( in addition to side-channel attacks ) for more information on is TEMPEST ( protecting against " spurious emmisions " that may leak information ) .
From there you can find information on many , many methods of side-channel attacks .
Examples include measuring the emag field from keyboard presses , monitoring CPU times &amp; power consumptions , reading screens in reflections , and many more.Again , this article highlights that all the software in the world ca n't protect against some hardware attacks .
( For example , a hardware keylogger between the keyboard and the computer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite so.
A good topic to research (in addition to side-channel attacks) for more information on is TEMPEST (protecting against "spurious emmisions" that may leak information).
From there you can find information on many, many methods of side-channel attacks.
Examples include measuring the emag field from keyboard presses, monitoring CPU times &amp; power consumptions, reading screens in reflections, and many more.Again, this article highlights that all the software in the world can't protect against some hardware attacks.
(For example, a hardware keylogger between the keyboard and the computer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602822</id>
	<title>Re:Not really...</title>
	<author>BrightSpark</author>
	<datestamp>1259861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, I'm with you on this one. The mere existance of a key, the sharing of the key and then the subsequent movement or reproduction of the encrypted knowledge is all exploitable. Just watch any popular spy thriller where the leading security/scientist steals the data to save his hostaged wife/kids. The fact is, quantum encryption removes much of the key's weakness. Blame other security systems if physical security is weak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I 'm with you on this one .
The mere existance of a key , the sharing of the key and then the subsequent movement or reproduction of the encrypted knowledge is all exploitable .
Just watch any popular spy thriller where the leading security/scientist steals the data to save his hostaged wife/kids .
The fact is , quantum encryption removes much of the key 's weakness .
Blame other security systems if physical security is weak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I'm with you on this one.
The mere existance of a key, the sharing of the key and then the subsequent movement or reproduction of the encrypted knowledge is all exploitable.
Just watch any popular spy thriller where the leading security/scientist steals the data to save his hostaged wife/kids.
The fact is, quantum encryption removes much of the key's weakness.
Blame other security systems if physical security is weak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600040</id>
	<title>Prototype fallible, news at 11.</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1259837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truly nothing to see here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601922</id>
	<title>Re:I've heard this before</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1259851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You defend the idea of Communism, yet hint at exactly why it doesn't work.  Pure Communism cannot and will not ever work for the same reasons that pure Democracy cannot and will not work - natural cooperation breaks down when the group size becomes so large that individuals do not know every other member of the group on a personal level.  Our congress would not function if it got much larger than it is.  If it grew to over 1,000 members our government would almost certainly collapse, as there would be no way to prevent the tyranny of the masses.</p><p>Incidentally, Capitalism doesn't get it right either, but it much better accounts for human nature than Communism does on a large scale.  Pure Capitalism misses the mark because it assumes we are completely self-serving, seeking only for our own best advantage.  This is not the case - there is altruism within us, and while not as prevalent as our self-serving nature, it tends to screw up the Capitalist ideal if not taken account for.  Incidentally this altruistic streak really screws with Game Theory, making it completely unreliable.  In any case, Capitalism does not correct the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor, however it does improve -everyone's- position, making a poor capitalist much richer than a poor communist.</p><p>Regarding Carl Marx, I commit a conscious logical fallacy with any of his ideas ever since I did a research paper on the man in junior high.  He was a serious piece of shit human being who would rather bemoan his status in the world than get off his ass and work to provide food for his starving family.  I have absolutely no respect for him or any of his ideas, and you will never convince me of the value his concepts while invoking his name.  When I read about him, all I really wanted to do was kick his whiny little ass.  Incidentally, I feel the same way about-able bodied people who make excuses about why they cannot work or need support when I see for-hire signs not a half a block down from where they panhandle.  That Carl Marx was able to gain world wide notariety and respect probably for a number of centuries while being a piece of shit human being just pisses me off even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You defend the idea of Communism , yet hint at exactly why it does n't work .
Pure Communism can not and will not ever work for the same reasons that pure Democracy can not and will not work - natural cooperation breaks down when the group size becomes so large that individuals do not know every other member of the group on a personal level .
Our congress would not function if it got much larger than it is .
If it grew to over 1,000 members our government would almost certainly collapse , as there would be no way to prevent the tyranny of the masses.Incidentally , Capitalism does n't get it right either , but it much better accounts for human nature than Communism does on a large scale .
Pure Capitalism misses the mark because it assumes we are completely self-serving , seeking only for our own best advantage .
This is not the case - there is altruism within us , and while not as prevalent as our self-serving nature , it tends to screw up the Capitalist ideal if not taken account for .
Incidentally this altruistic streak really screws with Game Theory , making it completely unreliable .
In any case , Capitalism does not correct the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor , however it does improve -everyone 's- position , making a poor capitalist much richer than a poor communist.Regarding Carl Marx , I commit a conscious logical fallacy with any of his ideas ever since I did a research paper on the man in junior high .
He was a serious piece of shit human being who would rather bemoan his status in the world than get off his ass and work to provide food for his starving family .
I have absolutely no respect for him or any of his ideas , and you will never convince me of the value his concepts while invoking his name .
When I read about him , all I really wanted to do was kick his whiny little ass .
Incidentally , I feel the same way about-able bodied people who make excuses about why they can not work or need support when I see for-hire signs not a half a block down from where they panhandle .
That Carl Marx was able to gain world wide notariety and respect probably for a number of centuries while being a piece of shit human being just pisses me off even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You defend the idea of Communism, yet hint at exactly why it doesn't work.
Pure Communism cannot and will not ever work for the same reasons that pure Democracy cannot and will not work - natural cooperation breaks down when the group size becomes so large that individuals do not know every other member of the group on a personal level.
Our congress would not function if it got much larger than it is.
If it grew to over 1,000 members our government would almost certainly collapse, as there would be no way to prevent the tyranny of the masses.Incidentally, Capitalism doesn't get it right either, but it much better accounts for human nature than Communism does on a large scale.
Pure Capitalism misses the mark because it assumes we are completely self-serving, seeking only for our own best advantage.
This is not the case - there is altruism within us, and while not as prevalent as our self-serving nature, it tends to screw up the Capitalist ideal if not taken account for.
Incidentally this altruistic streak really screws with Game Theory, making it completely unreliable.
In any case, Capitalism does not correct the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor, however it does improve -everyone's- position, making a poor capitalist much richer than a poor communist.Regarding Carl Marx, I commit a conscious logical fallacy with any of his ideas ever since I did a research paper on the man in junior high.
He was a serious piece of shit human being who would rather bemoan his status in the world than get off his ass and work to provide food for his starving family.
I have absolutely no respect for him or any of his ideas, and you will never convince me of the value his concepts while invoking his name.
When I read about him, all I really wanted to do was kick his whiny little ass.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about-able bodied people who make excuses about why they cannot work or need support when I see for-hire signs not a half a block down from where they panhandle.
That Carl Marx was able to gain world wide notariety and respect probably for a number of centuries while being a piece of shit human being just pisses me off even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601796</id>
	<title>Re:Fond memories</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1259850420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note the email subdomain?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.no<br>
European fashion was still in the (USA) 80's back then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note the email subdomain ?
.no European fashion was still in the ( USA ) 80 's back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note the email subdomain?
.no
European fashion was still in the (USA) 80's back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30604432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_2118250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30604432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30610516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30603854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601174
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30601918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30602600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_2118250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30599944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_2118250.30600058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
