<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_1321218</id>
	<title>China Emphasizes Laws As Google Defies Censorship</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263476400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lomegor writes <i>"Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/186881/china\_emphasizes\_laws\_as\_google\_defies\_censorship.html">they must do so under local laws</a>. Although not explicitly, this is in some way a response to Google's threat to leave the country. China also stated that they have strict cyber laws and that they forbid any kind of 'hacking attack'; when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided. 'It is still hard to say whether Google will quit China or not. Nobody knows,' the official in the State Council Information Office was quoted as saying."</i> I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions. We certainly live in interesting times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lomegor writes " Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws .
Although not explicitly , this is in some way a response to Google 's threat to leave the country .
China also stated that they have strict cyber laws and that they forbid any kind of 'hacking attack ' ; when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided .
'It is still hard to say whether Google will quit China or not .
Nobody knows, ' the official in the State Council Information Office was quoted as saying .
" I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions .
We certainly live in interesting times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lomegor writes "Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws.
Although not explicitly, this is in some way a response to Google's threat to leave the country.
China also stated that they have strict cyber laws and that they forbid any kind of 'hacking attack'; when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided.
'It is still hard to say whether Google will quit China or not.
Nobody knows,' the official in the State Council Information Office was quoted as saying.
" I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions.
We certainly live in interesting times.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636</id>
	<title>Fly on the wall -i'll pass</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1263482580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions. We certainly live in interesting times.</p> </div><p>No you wouldn't. It's not that lively - on the contrary it is quite boring, full of ritual and face saving.  If you ever have a case of insomnia attend one of these meetings - it will be clearly taken care of.<br> <br>

Now if you want a bit of excitement, political meetings that have some energy, then go to UK parliment meetings - especially when the prime minister is around. I remember watching video's of former PM Blair and boy was exciting. The guy was in the center of the room, turning around and launching off complex answers to complex questions.  Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions .
We certainly live in interesting times .
No you would n't .
It 's not that lively - on the contrary it is quite boring , full of ritual and face saving .
If you ever have a case of insomnia attend one of these meetings - it will be clearly taken care of .
Now if you want a bit of excitement , political meetings that have some energy , then go to UK parliment meetings - especially when the prime minister is around .
I remember watching video 's of former PM Blair and boy was exciting .
The guy was in the center of the room , turning around and launching off complex answers to complex questions .
Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions.
We certainly live in interesting times.
No you wouldn't.
It's not that lively - on the contrary it is quite boring, full of ritual and face saving.
If you ever have a case of insomnia attend one of these meetings - it will be clearly taken care of.
Now if you want a bit of excitement, political meetings that have some energy, then go to UK parliment meetings - especially when the prime minister is around.
I remember watching video's of former PM Blair and boy was exciting.
The guy was in the center of the room, turning around and launching off complex answers to complex questions.
Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765654</id>
	<title>Re:OK, how is China different from the US exactly?</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1263489720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China (or any other country) doing something you do not agree with does not imply in any way that other governments (and especially the US for all you US-centered people) are any better or worse. In fact the statement should be like a mirror for the US, it only reads a little different in my opinion:<br> <br>

US to everyone: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against our citizens and yours. Corporations are a different matter, donations here please..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>China ( or any other country ) doing something you do not agree with does not imply in any way that other governments ( and especially the US for all you US-centered people ) are any better or worse .
In fact the statement should be like a mirror for the US , it only reads a little different in my opinion : US to everyone : " Listen to us and obey our laws , even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against our citizens and yours .
Corporations are a different matter , donations here please... " ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China (or any other country) doing something you do not agree with does not imply in any way that other governments (and especially the US for all you US-centered people) are any better or worse.
In fact the statement should be like a mirror for the US, it only reads a little different in my opinion: 

US to everyone: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against our citizens and yours.
Corporations are a different matter, donations here please..." ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764636</id>
	<title>Begun the cyber wars have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spark for war between China and United States this may be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spark for war between China and United States this may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spark for war between China and United States this may be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763416</id>
	<title>Asian actually do catch flies with chopsticks</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1263481260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1gAHil89Z4" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1gAHil89Z4</a> [youtube.com]

Hmmmm... Asian actually do catch flies with chopsticks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = J1gAHil89Z4 [ youtube.com ] Hmmmm... Asian actually do catch flies with chopsticks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1gAHil89Z4 [youtube.com]

Hmmmm... Asian actually do catch flies with chopsticks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765946</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court system in China has at least one unwritten law that trumps all other laws. Obey the will of the Party. This is why doing business in China is so risky - the law actually in effect is not written down, changes from day to day, and from place to place and person to person in an often entirely unpredictable manner. In the US and most democracies, whatever their faults, the courts *mostly* operate in a reasonably independant way based on their interpretation of the law, not on the direct instructions of the ruling party. And it is possible to win lawsuits against such governments, and so those governments (yes, with obvious exceptions) generally try to operate pretty much within the law.<br>In China the party is above the law, and it also *is* the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court system in China has at least one unwritten law that trumps all other laws .
Obey the will of the Party .
This is why doing business in China is so risky - the law actually in effect is not written down , changes from day to day , and from place to place and person to person in an often entirely unpredictable manner .
In the US and most democracies , whatever their faults , the courts * mostly * operate in a reasonably independant way based on their interpretation of the law , not on the direct instructions of the ruling party .
And it is possible to win lawsuits against such governments , and so those governments ( yes , with obvious exceptions ) generally try to operate pretty much within the law.In China the party is above the law , and it also * is * the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court system in China has at least one unwritten law that trumps all other laws.
Obey the will of the Party.
This is why doing business in China is so risky - the law actually in effect is not written down, changes from day to day, and from place to place and person to person in an often entirely unpredictable manner.
In the US and most democracies, whatever their faults, the courts *mostly* operate in a reasonably independant way based on their interpretation of the law, not on the direct instructions of the ruling party.
And it is possible to win lawsuits against such governments, and so those governments (yes, with obvious exceptions) generally try to operate pretty much within the law.In China the party is above the law, and it also *is* the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</id>
	<title>Hypocrits</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1263480540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>China to Google: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users."<br> <br>
Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google. This way China wins and Google is left without a market in China at all, leaving with a damaged reputation for 'helping' the Chinese oppression and gaining nothing in the end... Pulling out is the wise thing to do, but not on their own. They have only said 'until here and no further', if Google moves out of China it will be because China makes them, and then Google is the hero of the story and China will be the party losing face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China to Google : " Listen to us and obey our laws , even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users .
" Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google * exacly * as they like it , and not like before with 'cooperation ' from google .
This way China wins and Google is left without a market in China at all , leaving with a damaged reputation for 'helping ' the Chinese oppression and gaining nothing in the end... Pulling out is the wise thing to do , but not on their own .
They have only said 'until here and no further ' , if Google moves out of China it will be because China makes them , and then Google is the hero of the story and China will be the party losing face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China to Google: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users.
" 
Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google.
This way China wins and Google is left without a market in China at all, leaving with a damaged reputation for 'helping' the Chinese oppression and gaining nothing in the end... Pulling out is the wise thing to do, but not on their own.
They have only said 'until here and no further', if Google moves out of China it will be because China makes them, and then Google is the hero of the story and China will be the party losing face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763536</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Source?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765012</id>
	<title>Re:Fly on the wall -i'll pass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...<i>and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting</i>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Me thinks that needs to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.Me thinks that needs to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.Me thinks that needs to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772888</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1263472980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Well it also says there that it is a "republic" that belongs to the "people". So when do the Chinese people get to start electing their leaders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Well it also says there that it is a " republic " that belongs to the " people " .
So when do the Chinese people get to start electing their leaders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Well it also says there that it is a "republic" that belongs to the "people".
So when do the Chinese people get to start electing their leaders?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763760</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1263483240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in China.  You just might not be very free after you say it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in China .
You just might not be very free after you say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are perfectly free to say whatever you want in China.
You just might not be very free after you say it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765562</id>
	<title>unionize</title>
	<author>cifey</author>
	<datestamp>1263489360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kudos to Google for making a principled stand.
But it might have been better if they had a tech coalition, Google, msft, yahoo, oracle etc to slowly peel off the censorship.
Perhaps this brash approach is the only way to make any impact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kudos to Google for making a principled stand .
But it might have been better if they had a tech coalition , Google , msft , yahoo , oracle etc to slowly peel off the censorship .
Perhaps this brash approach is the only way to make any impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kudos to Google for making a principled stand.
But it might have been better if they had a tech coalition, Google, msft, yahoo, oracle etc to slowly peel off the censorship.
Perhaps this brash approach is the only way to make any impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765376</id>
	<title>Re:China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1263488640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm sure China isn't the only country doing this, when you think about it this is a very scary proposition.</p><p>Just think - China decides that being able to take over the CNN front page at a future point in time might be useful to them (just a random example - it could be any site, and it could be some other country).</p><p>Teams work around the clock probing the CNN servers.  They monitor tons of network traffic so they can passively identify every server that people actually make connections to (even for the most obscure things like a rare banner ad or the data feed for some weather applet or whatever).  If ANY of those servers have a vulnerability they can get in.</p><p>Each lead is sent to a team that specializes in exploiting it.  Hmm, looks like they're using some load balancer on their webservers - based on traffic patterns it might be this one.  Let's give it to the guy who has taken apart two of them and knows the firmware inside and out.  Looks like their weather uses some obscure XML type - let's get a guy who knows all about it to see if maybe the parser lets in some obscure field in the spec that the underlying app server might choke on.</p><p>Then you get in.  The guy who manages to get a little access on a single box doesn't have to try to figure out the whole network on his own.  Instead a team that specializes in DMZ mapping takes over and figures out what their datacenter looks like.  Whole new teams work on additional exploits.</p><p>Once they find some good places to hide trojans then another team takes over.  That load balancer firmware expert knows exactly how to create a hidden partition in the flash on one of the NICs installed in it which somehow gets triggered by some interrupt to run some code - maybe triggered by a specially crafted packet hitting it from the net.  Specialists could sneak code into all kinds of places where nobody would ever spot it - probably in more than one place so a system upgrade wouldn't break their access.</p><p>Big companies have all kinds of proprietary software that isn't all that secure.  The thing is that most teenage/college hackers don't ever see this software and as a result don't hack it.  They might write a virus that targets excel, but they don't have one that targets some $3M payroll management system.</p><p>Once everything is in place it goes to the monitoring team which makes sure the trojans/etc stay in place with some stealthy pings from time to time.  They can stay on top of thousands of hacks and bring in help when something goes wrong - just think of them like you think of your server monitoring team at work...</p><p>Don't under-estimate the capability of a well-run professional team - especially a fairly new one.</p><p>Granted, in 20 years it will start to resemble the IT at many fortune 500s.  Hmm, the exploit script doesn't work - too bad we didn't pay the guy who wrote it enough and he's gone.  What, the monitoring team isn't doing its job right - oh, but the guy who heads it up is the boss's cousin - well, maybe we won't ever need those exploits to remain in place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm sure China is n't the only country doing this , when you think about it this is a very scary proposition.Just think - China decides that being able to take over the CNN front page at a future point in time might be useful to them ( just a random example - it could be any site , and it could be some other country ) .Teams work around the clock probing the CNN servers .
They monitor tons of network traffic so they can passively identify every server that people actually make connections to ( even for the most obscure things like a rare banner ad or the data feed for some weather applet or whatever ) .
If ANY of those servers have a vulnerability they can get in.Each lead is sent to a team that specializes in exploiting it .
Hmm , looks like they 're using some load balancer on their webservers - based on traffic patterns it might be this one .
Let 's give it to the guy who has taken apart two of them and knows the firmware inside and out .
Looks like their weather uses some obscure XML type - let 's get a guy who knows all about it to see if maybe the parser lets in some obscure field in the spec that the underlying app server might choke on.Then you get in .
The guy who manages to get a little access on a single box does n't have to try to figure out the whole network on his own .
Instead a team that specializes in DMZ mapping takes over and figures out what their datacenter looks like .
Whole new teams work on additional exploits.Once they find some good places to hide trojans then another team takes over .
That load balancer firmware expert knows exactly how to create a hidden partition in the flash on one of the NICs installed in it which somehow gets triggered by some interrupt to run some code - maybe triggered by a specially crafted packet hitting it from the net .
Specialists could sneak code into all kinds of places where nobody would ever spot it - probably in more than one place so a system upgrade would n't break their access.Big companies have all kinds of proprietary software that is n't all that secure .
The thing is that most teenage/college hackers do n't ever see this software and as a result do n't hack it .
They might write a virus that targets excel , but they do n't have one that targets some $ 3M payroll management system.Once everything is in place it goes to the monitoring team which makes sure the trojans/etc stay in place with some stealthy pings from time to time .
They can stay on top of thousands of hacks and bring in help when something goes wrong - just think of them like you think of your server monitoring team at work...Do n't under-estimate the capability of a well-run professional team - especially a fairly new one.Granted , in 20 years it will start to resemble the IT at many fortune 500s .
Hmm , the exploit script does n't work - too bad we did n't pay the guy who wrote it enough and he 's gone .
What , the monitoring team is n't doing its job right - oh , but the guy who heads it up is the boss 's cousin - well , maybe we wo n't ever need those exploits to remain in place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm sure China isn't the only country doing this, when you think about it this is a very scary proposition.Just think - China decides that being able to take over the CNN front page at a future point in time might be useful to them (just a random example - it could be any site, and it could be some other country).Teams work around the clock probing the CNN servers.
They monitor tons of network traffic so they can passively identify every server that people actually make connections to (even for the most obscure things like a rare banner ad or the data feed for some weather applet or whatever).
If ANY of those servers have a vulnerability they can get in.Each lead is sent to a team that specializes in exploiting it.
Hmm, looks like they're using some load balancer on their webservers - based on traffic patterns it might be this one.
Let's give it to the guy who has taken apart two of them and knows the firmware inside and out.
Looks like their weather uses some obscure XML type - let's get a guy who knows all about it to see if maybe the parser lets in some obscure field in the spec that the underlying app server might choke on.Then you get in.
The guy who manages to get a little access on a single box doesn't have to try to figure out the whole network on his own.
Instead a team that specializes in DMZ mapping takes over and figures out what their datacenter looks like.
Whole new teams work on additional exploits.Once they find some good places to hide trojans then another team takes over.
That load balancer firmware expert knows exactly how to create a hidden partition in the flash on one of the NICs installed in it which somehow gets triggered by some interrupt to run some code - maybe triggered by a specially crafted packet hitting it from the net.
Specialists could sneak code into all kinds of places where nobody would ever spot it - probably in more than one place so a system upgrade wouldn't break their access.Big companies have all kinds of proprietary software that isn't all that secure.
The thing is that most teenage/college hackers don't ever see this software and as a result don't hack it.
They might write a virus that targets excel, but they don't have one that targets some $3M payroll management system.Once everything is in place it goes to the monitoring team which makes sure the trojans/etc stay in place with some stealthy pings from time to time.
They can stay on top of thousands of hacks and bring in help when something goes wrong - just think of them like you think of your server monitoring team at work...Don't under-estimate the capability of a well-run professional team - especially a fairly new one.Granted, in 20 years it will start to resemble the IT at many fortune 500s.
Hmm, the exploit script doesn't work - too bad we didn't pay the guy who wrote it enough and he's gone.
What, the monitoring team isn't doing its job right - oh, but the guy who heads it up is the boss's cousin - well, maybe we won't ever need those exploits to remain in place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764344</id>
	<title>Will they do it here?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1263485640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the changing government wants to prohibit talk radio, say that the Constitution didn't go far enough to redistrubute wealth and soforth, what are the odds that they'll be forced to censor American traffic?</p><p>I mean, at this point we're not seeing a lot of political murders, but remember the "civilian national security force as large as the military" he promised? Chances are, it's the only campaign promise he'll keep.</p><p>Let's look back a second: these Liberals/Progressives have decided our light bulbs, toilets, refrigerant, cars, (in NYC) trans-fats and soon the salt in our shakers because [sarcasm]clearly the government knows better than us, what's good for us.[/sarcasm]</p><p>I submit Google will start censoring us when the cost to not do so, is death.</p><p>Now...does anyone want to talk about those 'fascist', 'mean', 'racist', 'angry', and 'extremist' conservatives?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) That lie's getting quite old these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the changing government wants to prohibit talk radio , say that the Constitution did n't go far enough to redistrubute wealth and soforth , what are the odds that they 'll be forced to censor American traffic ? I mean , at this point we 're not seeing a lot of political murders , but remember the " civilian national security force as large as the military " he promised ?
Chances are , it 's the only campaign promise he 'll keep.Let 's look back a second : these Liberals/Progressives have decided our light bulbs , toilets , refrigerant , cars , ( in NYC ) trans-fats and soon the salt in our shakers because [ sarcasm ] clearly the government knows better than us , what 's good for us .
[ /sarcasm ] I submit Google will start censoring us when the cost to not do so , is death.Now...does anyone want to talk about those 'fascist ' , 'mean ' , 'racist ' , 'angry ' , and 'extremist ' conservatives ?
: ) That lie 's getting quite old these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the changing government wants to prohibit talk radio, say that the Constitution didn't go far enough to redistrubute wealth and soforth, what are the odds that they'll be forced to censor American traffic?I mean, at this point we're not seeing a lot of political murders, but remember the "civilian national security force as large as the military" he promised?
Chances are, it's the only campaign promise he'll keep.Let's look back a second: these Liberals/Progressives have decided our light bulbs, toilets, refrigerant, cars, (in NYC) trans-fats and soon the salt in our shakers because [sarcasm]clearly the government knows better than us, what's good for us.
[/sarcasm]I submit Google will start censoring us when the cost to not do so, is death.Now...does anyone want to talk about those 'fascist', 'mean', 'racist', 'angry', and 'extremist' conservatives?
:) That lie's getting quite old these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763428</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263481320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rest of the world must follow our rules. But we could not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the world must follow our rules .
But we could not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the world must follow our rules.
But we could not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763312</id>
	<title>Does Google even have a choice any longer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, does Google even have a real choice in the matter? If they don't out and out leave China very soon, then they will forever be perceived as weak. The Chinese will consider them to be feeble pushovers. Not only that, but in the Western world they'll also be seen as weak, for caving in on the issue of censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , does Google even have a real choice in the matter ?
If they do n't out and out leave China very soon , then they will forever be perceived as weak .
The Chinese will consider them to be feeble pushovers .
Not only that , but in the Western world they 'll also be seen as weak , for caving in on the issue of censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, does Google even have a real choice in the matter?
If they don't out and out leave China very soon, then they will forever be perceived as weak.
The Chinese will consider them to be feeble pushovers.
Not only that, but in the Western world they'll also be seen as weak, for caving in on the issue of censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763754</id>
	<title>Privileged access</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263483180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What relationship have censorship with trying to attack Google or some activists accounts? They don't want to leave China, but specifically ends censorship, and that related not just with trying to hack accounts, but specifically get IP from google (private sources stolen?).<br><br>Could be related on how that censorship is implemented? If China govrnment had privileged access to Google network or some machines inside to implement that censorship, and those machines "misbehaved" (maybe not point a direct finger to how and when, but at least to say that odds were pretty high), that could have triggered that, hacking or not of activists accounts. Maybe they could trade to do a "dumber" way of filtering, a compromise between filtering something at least, and don't letting chance to China to infiltrate their network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What relationship have censorship with trying to attack Google or some activists accounts ?
They do n't want to leave China , but specifically ends censorship , and that related not just with trying to hack accounts , but specifically get IP from google ( private sources stolen ?
) .Could be related on how that censorship is implemented ?
If China govrnment had privileged access to Google network or some machines inside to implement that censorship , and those machines " misbehaved " ( maybe not point a direct finger to how and when , but at least to say that odds were pretty high ) , that could have triggered that , hacking or not of activists accounts .
Maybe they could trade to do a " dumber " way of filtering , a compromise between filtering something at least , and do n't letting chance to China to infiltrate their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What relationship have censorship with trying to attack Google or some activists accounts?
They don't want to leave China, but specifically ends censorship, and that related not just with trying to hack accounts, but specifically get IP from google (private sources stolen?
).Could be related on how that censorship is implemented?
If China govrnment had privileged access to Google network or some machines inside to implement that censorship, and those machines "misbehaved" (maybe not point a direct finger to how and when, but at least to say that odds were pretty high), that could have triggered that, hacking or not of activists accounts.
Maybe they could trade to do a "dumber" way of filtering, a compromise between filtering something at least, and don't letting chance to China to infiltrate their network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764100</id>
	<title>That's exactly Google's problem..</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1263484680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. compliance with local laws where it interferes with making money.</p><p>Just ask Japan or Switzerland..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. compliance with local laws where it interferes with making money.Just ask Japan or Switzerland. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. compliance with local laws where it interferes with making money.Just ask Japan or Switzerland..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30767782</id>
	<title>Of course the government will obey the law....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided."</p><p>Of course the government will obey the law, because they write the law. They can just write the law to make it legal for them to do anything.</p><p>On the other hand, don't other countries do the same? I am sure there are other government agencies busily hacking for military or business intelligences as I type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided .
" Of course the government will obey the law , because they write the law .
They can just write the law to make it legal for them to do anything.On the other hand , do n't other countries do the same ?
I am sure there are other government agencies busily hacking for military or business intelligences as I type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided.
"Of course the government will obey the law, because they write the law.
They can just write the law to make it legal for them to do anything.On the other hand, don't other countries do the same?
I am sure there are other government agencies busily hacking for military or business intelligences as I type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768354</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263498240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese constitution is a work of complete fiction.</p><p>If their government followed it, China would be one of the most progressive countries in the world... it spells out tons of freedoms that the majority of the world doesn't have. It goes above and beyond the UN Human Rights Declaration. It's easy to find online in English-- read it and see what you think.</p><p>That said, nothing in their constitution has ever actually applied to China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese constitution is a work of complete fiction.If their government followed it , China would be one of the most progressive countries in the world... it spells out tons of freedoms that the majority of the world does n't have .
It goes above and beyond the UN Human Rights Declaration .
It 's easy to find online in English-- read it and see what you think.That said , nothing in their constitution has ever actually applied to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese constitution is a work of complete fiction.If their government followed it, China would be one of the most progressive countries in the world... it spells out tons of freedoms that the majority of the world doesn't have.
It goes above and beyond the UN Human Rights Declaration.
It's easy to find online in English-- read it and see what you think.That said, nothing in their constitution has ever actually applied to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766686</id>
	<title>Fuck China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263493020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They try to poison our pets and then ourselves with tainted foodstuffs, they sell us building materials made with toxic substances that fall apart and make people sick, they make toys for our children with cadmium and lead other toxic heavy metals in them. Lately I hear about a Chinese auto manufacturer that wants to sell here in the U.S.; I can only assume the damned things will explode, or be radioactive, or have some aspect to them that will eventually kill or sicken the driver and other occupants. They continually hack our government and corporate servers, and all the while they talk shit about us and try to push their agenda. Granted in some ways the U.S. isn't much better but <i>what the fuck</i>? Google should close down their offices in Beijing and leave China, and China should be cut off from the rest of the Internet, permanently. I can't see why they would complain anyway, their government is so fucking isolationist, they should <i>appreciate</i> being left alone. Pull out of China, stop doing business with them, and cut them off. We don't fucking need them and their poisons, or their poisonous attitudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They try to poison our pets and then ourselves with tainted foodstuffs , they sell us building materials made with toxic substances that fall apart and make people sick , they make toys for our children with cadmium and lead other toxic heavy metals in them .
Lately I hear about a Chinese auto manufacturer that wants to sell here in the U.S. ; I can only assume the damned things will explode , or be radioactive , or have some aspect to them that will eventually kill or sicken the driver and other occupants .
They continually hack our government and corporate servers , and all the while they talk shit about us and try to push their agenda .
Granted in some ways the U.S. is n't much better but what the fuck ?
Google should close down their offices in Beijing and leave China , and China should be cut off from the rest of the Internet , permanently .
I ca n't see why they would complain anyway , their government is so fucking isolationist , they should appreciate being left alone .
Pull out of China , stop doing business with them , and cut them off .
We do n't fucking need them and their poisons , or their poisonous attitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They try to poison our pets and then ourselves with tainted foodstuffs, they sell us building materials made with toxic substances that fall apart and make people sick, they make toys for our children with cadmium and lead other toxic heavy metals in them.
Lately I hear about a Chinese auto manufacturer that wants to sell here in the U.S.; I can only assume the damned things will explode, or be radioactive, or have some aspect to them that will eventually kill or sicken the driver and other occupants.
They continually hack our government and corporate servers, and all the while they talk shit about us and try to push their agenda.
Granted in some ways the U.S. isn't much better but what the fuck?
Google should close down their offices in Beijing and leave China, and China should be cut off from the rest of the Internet, permanently.
I can't see why they would complain anyway, their government is so fucking isolationist, they should appreciate being left alone.
Pull out of China, stop doing business with them, and cut them off.
We don't fucking need them and their poisons, or their poisonous attitudes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764002</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1263484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution\_of\_the\_People's\_Republic\_of\_China#1982\_document" title="wikipedia.org">"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration."</a> [wikipedia.org] (see external links).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that " citizens of the People 's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech , of the press , of assembly , of association , of procession , and of demonstration .
" [ wikipedia.org ] ( see external links ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.
" [wikipedia.org] (see external links).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763600</id>
	<title>fuck a= Gnaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>declined in market battled in court, the hard drive to asshole to others ALL KNOW WE WANT. collect any spilled sh0wer Don't just towel under the LEARN WHAT MISTAKES transfer, Netscape Gave the BSD the facts and AND THE STRIKING with process and disgust, or been name on the jar of (I always bring my previously thought and sold in the Endless conflict we don't sux0r as Whether you all along. *BSD BSDI is also dead, Right now. I tried, the resignation Antibacterial soap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>declined in market battled in court , the hard drive to asshole to others ALL KNOW WE WANT .
collect any spilled sh0wer Do n't just towel under the LEARN WHAT MISTAKES transfer , Netscape Gave the BSD the facts and AND THE STRIKING with process and disgust , or been name on the jar of ( I always bring my previously thought and sold in the Endless conflict we do n't sux0r as Whether you all along .
* BSD BSDI is also dead , Right now .
I tried , the resignation Antibacterial soap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>declined in market battled in court, the hard drive to asshole to others ALL KNOW WE WANT.
collect any spilled sh0wer Don't just towel under the LEARN WHAT MISTAKES transfer, Netscape Gave the BSD the facts and AND THE STRIKING with process and disgust, or been name on the jar of (I always bring my previously thought and sold in the Endless conflict we don't sux0r as Whether you all along.
*BSD BSDI is also dead, Right now.
I tried, the resignation Antibacterial soap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765128</id>
	<title>What Google should do</title>
	<author>highfidelitychris</author>
	<datestamp>1263487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They shouldn't leave, they should just stop censoring all traffic and then make China go through the effort of blocking them.  They look like even more of the good guys then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't leave , they should just stop censoring all traffic and then make China go through the effort of blocking them .
They look like even more of the good guys then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't leave, they should just stop censoring all traffic and then make China go through the effort of blocking them.
They look like even more of the good guys then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</id>
	<title>Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982 (not that that mattered much 2 years afterwards). That is, censorship is officially *against* the Chinese constitution. I'd actually like to see this go to court; if it's a fair trial, the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982 ( not that that mattered much 2 years afterwards ) .
That is , censorship is officially * against * the Chinese constitution .
I 'd actually like to see this go to court ; if it 's a fair trial , the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982 (not that that mattered much 2 years afterwards).
That is, censorship is officially *against* the Chinese constitution.
I'd actually like to see this go to court; if it's a fair trial, the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763622</id>
	<title>Just posturing</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1263482520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that Google is just posturing to try and get itself some negotiation room.<br>We all know that none whatsoever company that has the size of Google will choose to not participate in such a large market.</p><p>That Google would pull no evil is just marketing bullshit, they will betray everybody even for minimal amounts of money whenever they can, because this is what is it's function to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Google is just posturing to try and get itself some negotiation room.We all know that none whatsoever company that has the size of Google will choose to not participate in such a large market.That Google would pull no evil is just marketing bullshit , they will betray everybody even for minimal amounts of money whenever they can , because this is what is it 's function to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Google is just posturing to try and get itself some negotiation room.We all know that none whatsoever company that has the size of Google will choose to not participate in such a large market.That Google would pull no evil is just marketing bullshit, they will betray everybody even for minimal amounts of money whenever they can, because this is what is it's function to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763358</id>
	<title>What laws?</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1263480780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is such bull...everyone, on all sides pretending that red commies care about law?! WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is such bull...everyone , on all sides pretending that red commies care about law ? !
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is such bull...everyone, on all sides pretending that red commies care about law?!
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766286</id>
	<title>Re:OK, how is China different from the US exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263491700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logical fallacy.  I suspect most people are just as much opposed to US government abuses as they are to Chinese govt abuses.  This story happens to be about China so it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those are the kind of posts you're going to see.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logical fallacy .
I suspect most people are just as much opposed to US government abuses as they are to Chinese govt abuses .
This story happens to be about China so it should n't be surprising to anyone that those are the kind of posts you 're going to see .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logical fallacy.
I suspect most people are just as much opposed to US government abuses as they are to Chinese govt abuses.
This story happens to be about China so it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those are the kind of posts you're going to see.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562</id>
	<title>OK, how is China different from the US exactly?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1263482220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it because we can vote that we think we are safe from an abusive government?</p><p>Just reading the story below points out how the US likes to codify its abuses of our rights and somehow it is all OK because our elections are "open",  granted calling only being able to select from two parties as being open.  I guess that is twice as good as China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it because we can vote that we think we are safe from an abusive government ? Just reading the story below points out how the US likes to codify its abuses of our rights and somehow it is all OK because our elections are " open " , granted calling only being able to select from two parties as being open .
I guess that is twice as good as China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it because we can vote that we think we are safe from an abusive government?Just reading the story below points out how the US likes to codify its abuses of our rights and somehow it is all OK because our elections are "open",  granted calling only being able to select from two parties as being open.
I guess that is twice as good as China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763334</id>
	<title>wanted: proofreaders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFS:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>China also stated that <em>they strict cyber laws</em> and <em>that the it forbids</em> any kind of "hacking attack";</p></div><p>I'm sorry CmdrTaco, but if you want us to spend more time on your site than you spend on proofreading, lowering the bar is not the best way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFS : China also stated that they strict cyber laws and that the it forbids any kind of " hacking attack " ; I 'm sorry CmdrTaco , but if you want us to spend more time on your site than you spend on proofreading , lowering the bar is not the best way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFS:China also stated that they strict cyber laws and that the it forbids any kind of "hacking attack";I'm sorry CmdrTaco, but if you want us to spend more time on your site than you spend on proofreading, lowering the bar is not the best way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764132</id>
	<title>You *do* know what 'totalitarianism' is?</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1263484860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>.... I'd actually like to see this go to court; if it's a fair trial, the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it.</p></div><p>.... Your real name wouldn't happen to be Anne Frank, would it?</p><p>I suggest you go read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism</a> [wikipedia.org]. Pay attention to the first two paragraphs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.... I 'd actually like to see this go to court ; if it 's a fair trial , the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it..... Your real name would n't happen to be Anne Frank , would it ? I suggest you go read http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism [ wikipedia.org ] .
Pay attention to the first two paragraphs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .... I'd actually like to see this go to court; if it's a fair trial, the Chinese probably will end up being better off because of it..... Your real name wouldn't happen to be Anne Frank, would it?I suggest you go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism [wikipedia.org].
Pay attention to the first two paragraphs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772082</id>
	<title>Re:After living in China for awhile...</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1263469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is, the closer that you get to China, the less things make sense</p></div><p>Visiting China is like dating an angry woman?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is , the closer that you get to China , the less things make senseVisiting China is like dating an angry woman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is, the closer that you get to China, the less things make senseVisiting China is like dating an angry woman?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763618</id>
	<title>Rigged Game?</title>
	<author>Software Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1263482520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My employer does a lot of business in China, both development work and sales into the chinese market.<br>This incident with google has really made me stop and think about whether the whole game is rigged.</p><p>Invest in China? Your technology will stolen by chinese competitors.<br>Outcompete your chinese competitors?  The local laws will be changed in their favor.<br>Complain? Your people will be arrested.<br>Leave? Your assets will be nationalized.</p><p>The chinese haven't done any of that stuff to my employer, as far as I know.  But it is the only country we do business in where the question might even come up.<br>It turns out that doing business in a country without the rule of law entails some serious business risks.<br>I wonder how many executives are having this same thought, right now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer does a lot of business in China , both development work and sales into the chinese market.This incident with google has really made me stop and think about whether the whole game is rigged.Invest in China ?
Your technology will stolen by chinese competitors.Outcompete your chinese competitors ?
The local laws will be changed in their favor.Complain ?
Your people will be arrested.Leave ?
Your assets will be nationalized.The chinese have n't done any of that stuff to my employer , as far as I know .
But it is the only country we do business in where the question might even come up.It turns out that doing business in a country without the rule of law entails some serious business risks.I wonder how many executives are having this same thought , right now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer does a lot of business in China, both development work and sales into the chinese market.This incident with google has really made me stop and think about whether the whole game is rigged.Invest in China?
Your technology will stolen by chinese competitors.Outcompete your chinese competitors?
The local laws will be changed in their favor.Complain?
Your people will be arrested.Leave?
Your assets will be nationalized.The chinese haven't done any of that stuff to my employer, as far as I know.
But it is the only country we do business in where the question might even come up.It turns out that doing business in a country without the rule of law entails some serious business risks.I wonder how many executives are having this same thought, right now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763482</id>
	<title>Hmmmmm, so it was not the USA?</title>
	<author>superflit</author>
	<datestamp>1263481800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am admired that this was done be the China....<br>I am shocked that "all evil" and privacy violations did not come from USA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>So the USA is not always the evil? The "commie and social" can be as evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am admired that this was done be the China....I am shocked that " all evil " and privacy violations did not come from USA .
....So the USA is not always the evil ?
The " commie and social " can be as evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am admired that this was done be the China....I am shocked that "all evil" and privacy violations did not come from USA.
....So the USA is not always the evil?
The "commie and social" can be as evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764724</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982</i></p><p>Natural human rights cannot be granted or "allowed" by government, because the concept of human rights precedes government. The concept of human rights is a product of human nature, not organized coercion. Government can only take away what we already have by the law of human nature (or god, if you prefer).</p><p>If government disappears, the concept of natural human rights would not disappear along with it.</p><p>The idea that government "allows" natural human rights implies that government -- which is comprised of nothing but human beings -- physically owns <i>other</i> human beings and therefore has the right to pick and choose which of their rights to respect. In other words, the rights of some human beings take precedence over the rights of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982Natural human rights can not be granted or " allowed " by government , because the concept of human rights precedes government .
The concept of human rights is a product of human nature , not organized coercion .
Government can only take away what we already have by the law of human nature ( or god , if you prefer ) .If government disappears , the concept of natural human rights would not disappear along with it.The idea that government " allows " natural human rights implies that government -- which is comprised of nothing but human beings -- physically owns other human beings and therefore has the right to pick and choose which of their rights to respect .
In other words , the rights of some human beings take precedence over the rights of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982Natural human rights cannot be granted or "allowed" by government, because the concept of human rights precedes government.
The concept of human rights is a product of human nature, not organized coercion.
Government can only take away what we already have by the law of human nature (or god, if you prefer).If government disappears, the concept of natural human rights would not disappear along with it.The idea that government "allows" natural human rights implies that government -- which is comprised of nothing but human beings -- physically owns other human beings and therefore has the right to pick and choose which of their rights to respect.
In other words, the rights of some human beings take precedence over the rights of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764440</id>
	<title>Re:China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1263485940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, Chinnese population could maybe make massive parallel brute force attacks to any password no mattering its length.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , Chinnese population could maybe make massive parallel brute force attacks to any password no mattering its length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, Chinnese population could maybe make massive parallel brute force attacks to any password no mattering its length.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764454</id>
	<title>DMCA? DoD? FREE USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMCA? DoD?</p><p>FREE USA!<br>FREE Canada!<br>FREE Australia!<br>FREE New Zealand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMCA ?
DoD ? FREE USA ! FREE Canada ! FREE Australia ! FREE New Zealand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMCA?
DoD?FREE USA!FREE Canada!FREE Australia!FREE New Zealand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764150</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1263484920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China to Google: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users."</p></div><p>Sounds like Bush and Cheney got new jobs...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China to Google : " Listen to us and obey our laws , even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users .
" Sounds like Bush and Cheney got new jobs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China to Google: "Listen to us and obey our laws, even though they do not apply to us and we will abuse this power against your company and your users.
"Sounds like Bush and Cheney got new jobs...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763644</id>
	<title>Why does China bother?</title>
	<author>mschirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1263482640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get why China insists on filtering search results at the search engine level. Would it not be easier to enforce ISP level DPI filtering and block the pages accordingly?</p><p>Technically it's easier to get Google to do the censorship work, but in the end, Google and just up and leave if they want, whereas employing DPI @ ISP level means it doesn't matter what search engine the end-user uses, it's still going to be filtered, and you can always threaten a local Chinese ISP with much more than you can threaten an international spotlight company like Google.</p><p>I'm not saying they should do this, but I don't see why they are chasing this one, other than to make a political statement to the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why China insists on filtering search results at the search engine level .
Would it not be easier to enforce ISP level DPI filtering and block the pages accordingly ? Technically it 's easier to get Google to do the censorship work , but in the end , Google and just up and leave if they want , whereas employing DPI @ ISP level means it does n't matter what search engine the end-user uses , it 's still going to be filtered , and you can always threaten a local Chinese ISP with much more than you can threaten an international spotlight company like Google.I 'm not saying they should do this , but I do n't see why they are chasing this one , other than to make a political statement to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why China insists on filtering search results at the search engine level.
Would it not be easier to enforce ISP level DPI filtering and block the pages accordingly?Technically it's easier to get Google to do the censorship work, but in the end, Google and just up and leave if they want, whereas employing DPI @ ISP level means it doesn't matter what search engine the end-user uses, it's still going to be filtered, and you can always threaten a local Chinese ISP with much more than you can threaten an international spotlight company like Google.I'm not saying they should do this, but I don't see why they are chasing this one, other than to make a political statement to the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765714</id>
	<title>Multipolar world</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1263489900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who thinks a multipolar world with a Chinese superpower would be way, way worse than an American hegemony?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thinks a multipolar world with a Chinese superpower would be way , way worse than an American hegemony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thinks a multipolar world with a Chinese superpower would be way, way worse than an American hegemony?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763576</id>
	<title>What about trade laws?</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1263482280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China's famous for being a place that will rip off small and medium sized businesses by buying a few units in a preliminary order, then reverse-engineering it and selling it locally for cheap. Which makes perfect sense; the Americans did that to the UK/Europe, and it's how they industrialized so fast. I don't really have a problem, morally, with them ignoring international trade law like that, though I'm kind of a radical when it comes to IP anyway.
<p>
But if China's going to go around breaking other nations' laws, whining about it happening to them just makes them look stupid, opportunistic, and greedy (which, again, worked out for the Americans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rimshot). If they want people to take their laws seriously, they'll have to do what the States did, and actually start getting along with the other nations with mutual agreements and enforcement. I don't think they will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's famous for being a place that will rip off small and medium sized businesses by buying a few units in a preliminary order , then reverse-engineering it and selling it locally for cheap .
Which makes perfect sense ; the Americans did that to the UK/Europe , and it 's how they industrialized so fast .
I do n't really have a problem , morally , with them ignoring international trade law like that , though I 'm kind of a radical when it comes to IP anyway .
But if China 's going to go around breaking other nations ' laws , whining about it happening to them just makes them look stupid , opportunistic , and greedy ( which , again , worked out for the Americans /rimshot ) .
If they want people to take their laws seriously , they 'll have to do what the States did , and actually start getting along with the other nations with mutual agreements and enforcement .
I do n't think they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's famous for being a place that will rip off small and medium sized businesses by buying a few units in a preliminary order, then reverse-engineering it and selling it locally for cheap.
Which makes perfect sense; the Americans did that to the UK/Europe, and it's how they industrialized so fast.
I don't really have a problem, morally, with them ignoring international trade law like that, though I'm kind of a radical when it comes to IP anyway.
But if China's going to go around breaking other nations' laws, whining about it happening to them just makes them look stupid, opportunistic, and greedy (which, again, worked out for the Americans /rimshot).
If they want people to take their laws seriously, they'll have to do what the States did, and actually start getting along with the other nations with mutual agreements and enforcement.
I don't think they will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768696</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1263499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese constitution isn't a constitution in the western, "constitutionalism" sense. It's definitely not a document to safeguard citizen's rights, and it's definitely not "enforceable" in the normal sense.</p><p>From what I understand, it's more of a general declaration of intention, and exceptions could be carved out of it. The obvious examples are freedom of speech and democracy.</p><p>If you actually read it, you'd have thought it was a preamble of the laws in China, explaining the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party/Government, and factually describing the political system, instead of a legal document. As far as I know nobody has really succeeded in enforcing the constitution, and it's not bloody likely that anybody would succeed in the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese constitution is n't a constitution in the western , " constitutionalism " sense .
It 's definitely not a document to safeguard citizen 's rights , and it 's definitely not " enforceable " in the normal sense.From what I understand , it 's more of a general declaration of intention , and exceptions could be carved out of it .
The obvious examples are freedom of speech and democracy.If you actually read it , you 'd have thought it was a preamble of the laws in China , explaining the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party/Government , and factually describing the political system , instead of a legal document .
As far as I know nobody has really succeeded in enforcing the constitution , and it 's not bloody likely that anybody would succeed in the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese constitution isn't a constitution in the western, "constitutionalism" sense.
It's definitely not a document to safeguard citizen's rights, and it's definitely not "enforceable" in the normal sense.From what I understand, it's more of a general declaration of intention, and exceptions could be carved out of it.
The obvious examples are freedom of speech and democracy.If you actually read it, you'd have thought it was a preamble of the laws in China, explaining the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party/Government, and factually describing the political system, instead of a legal document.
As far as I know nobody has really succeeded in enforcing the constitution, and it's not bloody likely that anybody would succeed in the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30776960</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263555900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace "China to Google" with "USA to World".</p><p>If you can't see the difference, then congratulations! You are not the ignorant hypocritical dickhead American I thought you were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace " China to Google " with " USA to World " .If you ca n't see the difference , then congratulations !
You are not the ignorant hypocritical dickhead American I thought you were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace "China to Google" with "USA to World".If you can't see the difference, then congratulations!
You are not the ignorant hypocritical dickhead American I thought you were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763260</id>
	<title>Looks like email and the desktop were not enough</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1263480240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that google has moved firmly into politics. I wonder if as a kid good ol' Sergey Brinn would have ever imaged how much of a difference he would make in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that google has moved firmly into politics .
I wonder if as a kid good ol ' Sergey Brinn would have ever imaged how much of a difference he would make in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that google has moved firmly into politics.
I wonder if as a kid good ol' Sergey Brinn would have ever imaged how much of a difference he would make in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763888</id>
	<title>Re:OK, how is China different from the US exactly?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263483780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Safe no Protected Yes...</p><p>There is a difference...  I agree the two party system isn't ideal and I will be very happy the day that 3rd parties can get enough to kick out the Democrats who stand for Metro Areas where the people are dependent on government for their survival, and suffer problems such as over population, and the huge differences in quality of life between the Rich and the Poor.  Vs. Republicans who stand for Rural areas where people are self proficient and their taxes goes to services they barley ever see, and their community is based around religion and faith. As well in these areas gap between quality of life between the rich and poor is much less, and for the most part the reason people are rich or poor is because they deserved it.</p><p>But this does allow the people in the suburbs to do something about it. And if they see a party is too abusive they will vote them out... Just as in the last election The republican party has lost its way and was being too corrupt for its own good so they voted them out and now they are suffering and they are trying to remake themselves determining if they should be more true on core values or be more moderate.  However now that the democrats are in power a lot of people are seeing abuse on their end so the next set of elections my turn the tide giving republicans a bit more power to keep them in check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safe no Protected Yes...There is a difference... I agree the two party system is n't ideal and I will be very happy the day that 3rd parties can get enough to kick out the Democrats who stand for Metro Areas where the people are dependent on government for their survival , and suffer problems such as over population , and the huge differences in quality of life between the Rich and the Poor .
Vs. Republicans who stand for Rural areas where people are self proficient and their taxes goes to services they barley ever see , and their community is based around religion and faith .
As well in these areas gap between quality of life between the rich and poor is much less , and for the most part the reason people are rich or poor is because they deserved it.But this does allow the people in the suburbs to do something about it .
And if they see a party is too abusive they will vote them out... Just as in the last election The republican party has lost its way and was being too corrupt for its own good so they voted them out and now they are suffering and they are trying to remake themselves determining if they should be more true on core values or be more moderate .
However now that the democrats are in power a lot of people are seeing abuse on their end so the next set of elections my turn the tide giving republicans a bit more power to keep them in check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safe no Protected Yes...There is a difference...  I agree the two party system isn't ideal and I will be very happy the day that 3rd parties can get enough to kick out the Democrats who stand for Metro Areas where the people are dependent on government for their survival, and suffer problems such as over population, and the huge differences in quality of life between the Rich and the Poor.
Vs. Republicans who stand for Rural areas where people are self proficient and their taxes goes to services they barley ever see, and their community is based around religion and faith.
As well in these areas gap between quality of life between the rich and poor is much less, and for the most part the reason people are rich or poor is because they deserved it.But this does allow the people in the suburbs to do something about it.
And if they see a party is too abusive they will vote them out... Just as in the last election The republican party has lost its way and was being too corrupt for its own good so they voted them out and now they are suffering and they are trying to remake themselves determining if they should be more true on core values or be more moderate.
However now that the democrats are in power a lot of people are seeing abuse on their end so the next set of elections my turn the tide giving republicans a bit more power to keep them in check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765810</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263490200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fair trial" in China means one where they only execute you and not your family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fair trial " in China means one where they only execute you and not your family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fair trial" in China means one where they only execute you and not your family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764742</id>
	<title>Congratulations Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I am a rampant Apple fanboi, I am impressed by this show of spine by Google (even if it is partially dictated by financial concerns).  I will be purchasing Google stock (probably later today), to hold for the long term.  (Unfortunately I still think the iPhone is still going to clean the Android's clock!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I am a rampant Apple fanboi , I am impressed by this show of spine by Google ( even if it is partially dictated by financial concerns ) .
I will be purchasing Google stock ( probably later today ) , to hold for the long term .
( Unfortunately I still think the iPhone is still going to clean the Android 's clock !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I am a rampant Apple fanboi, I am impressed by this show of spine by Google (even if it is partially dictated by financial concerns).
I will be purchasing Google stock (probably later today), to hold for the long term.
(Unfortunately I still think the iPhone is still going to clean the Android's clock!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763672</id>
	<title>Goose meet gander</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided.</p><p>Are you freaking kidding me?<br>That is EXACTLY what every government does, ESPECIALLY the US.</p><p>But since its someone else who does it, ohhh, theyre baaaaad.</p><p>Govts have always played the game 'do as i say, not as I do'.<br>To make it seem like the chinese are doing something exceptional makes you a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... hypocrite.</p><p>You cant be that daft not to know that some people are terrorists while others who do the same are freedom fighters. Its the same actions but we frame it differently when we support terrorism.<br>Same things for war crimes and international laws: we force others to respect them when we need a stick to beat them with yet when we bomb, invade, kill, kidnap presidents, overthrow govts, poison people and lands, we dont follow the rules. Hell, we event went to countries getting them to sign a waiver so our criminals with guns in other countries cant be prosecuted.</p><p>If youre going to use the word hypocrite please look into the mirror first.</p><p>Having worked in China for a few years, I know that they dont take kindly to being publicly humiliated and saving face and honour still has importance there.<br>Besides, we've sold guns and weapons and still do to some of the filthiest govts in the world, some which still practice racial purity and apartheid, we have no morals in this country in this matter. Let's now act like we have a moral compass. If we do, its pretty selective and only is used when it suits us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided.Are you freaking kidding me ? That is EXACTLY what every government does , ESPECIALLY the US.But since its someone else who does it , ohhh , theyre baaaaad.Govts have always played the game 'do as i say , not as I do'.To make it seem like the chinese are doing something exceptional makes you a .... hypocrite.You cant be that daft not to know that some people are terrorists while others who do the same are freedom fighters .
Its the same actions but we frame it differently when we support terrorism.Same things for war crimes and international laws : we force others to respect them when we need a stick to beat them with yet when we bomb , invade , kill , kidnap presidents , overthrow govts , poison people and lands , we dont follow the rules .
Hell , we event went to countries getting them to sign a waiver so our criminals with guns in other countries cant be prosecuted.If youre going to use the word hypocrite please look into the mirror first.Having worked in China for a few years , I know that they dont take kindly to being publicly humiliated and saving face and honour still has importance there.Besides , we 've sold guns and weapons and still do to some of the filthiest govts in the world , some which still practice racial purity and apartheid , we have no morals in this country in this matter .
Let 's now act like we have a moral compass .
If we do , its pretty selective and only is used when it suits us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided.Are you freaking kidding me?That is EXACTLY what every government does, ESPECIALLY the US.But since its someone else who does it, ohhh, theyre baaaaad.Govts have always played the game 'do as i say, not as I do'.To make it seem like the chinese are doing something exceptional makes you a .... hypocrite.You cant be that daft not to know that some people are terrorists while others who do the same are freedom fighters.
Its the same actions but we frame it differently when we support terrorism.Same things for war crimes and international laws: we force others to respect them when we need a stick to beat them with yet when we bomb, invade, kill, kidnap presidents, overthrow govts, poison people and lands, we dont follow the rules.
Hell, we event went to countries getting them to sign a waiver so our criminals with guns in other countries cant be prosecuted.If youre going to use the word hypocrite please look into the mirror first.Having worked in China for a few years, I know that they dont take kindly to being publicly humiliated and saving face and honour still has importance there.Besides, we've sold guns and weapons and still do to some of the filthiest govts in the world, some which still practice racial purity and apartheid, we have no morals in this country in this matter.
Let's now act like we have a moral compass.
If we do, its pretty selective and only is used when it suits us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763490</id>
	<title>Re:China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263481920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has ever looked at a weblog knows this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has ever looked at a weblog knows this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has ever looked at a weblog knows this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768020</id>
	<title>Google may be smarter than it would appear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a guess, but it's possible that Google has discovered somehow that the Chinese Govt isn't going to allow them to get very big in the Chinese market because it would threaten Baidu's growth.  If this is so Google isn't losing very much anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a guess , but it 's possible that Google has discovered somehow that the Chinese Govt is n't going to allow them to get very big in the Chinese market because it would threaten Baidu 's growth .
If this is so Google is n't losing very much anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a guess, but it's possible that Google has discovered somehow that the Chinese Govt isn't going to allow them to get very big in the Chinese market because it would threaten Baidu's growth.
If this is so Google isn't losing very much anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30767634</id>
	<title>Obvious fail is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a foreigner I have been owning a software company for the past 5 years in China.</p><p>It might be a surprised to most of you, but I've experienced nothing but a pleasant business environment.</p><p>Obviously I recognize that many companies get throughly shafted by the gov, or worse...</p><p>But why is this?</p><p>Here is an equation:</p><p>You like China and thinks it is a swell place, you're glad to add some value! = your business stays.<br>You think that China is not political correct in regards to your favorite government at home....and you try to change it = your business fails.</p><p>Now substitute "China" with any country you want... it might help you to understand the equation......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a foreigner I have been owning a software company for the past 5 years in China.It might be a surprised to most of you , but I 've experienced nothing but a pleasant business environment.Obviously I recognize that many companies get throughly shafted by the gov , or worse...But why is this ? Here is an equation : You like China and thinks it is a swell place , you 're glad to add some value !
= your business stays.You think that China is not political correct in regards to your favorite government at home....and you try to change it = your business fails.Now substitute " China " with any country you want... it might help you to understand the equation..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a foreigner I have been owning a software company for the past 5 years in China.It might be a surprised to most of you, but I've experienced nothing but a pleasant business environment.Obviously I recognize that many companies get throughly shafted by the gov, or worse...But why is this?Here is an equation:You like China and thinks it is a swell place, you're glad to add some value!
= your business stays.You think that China is not political correct in regards to your favorite government at home....and you try to change it = your business fails.Now substitute "China" with any country you want... it might help you to understand the equation......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768338</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>evilWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1263498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone brings up the old "China's constitution protects free speech!" handwaving almost every time the issue comes up. Since I note no one has made the appropriate response yet, I guess this time it's my turn to google up the sections that *completely cancel that guarantee whenever the government feels like it*:</p><p>Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.</p><p>That's the worst offender, but there are several others that are vague and could (and are) twisted into addition the-constitution-strips-your-rights abuses. My notes in [].</p><p>Article 25. The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development. [one-child policy, of which there are accusations of selective enforcement]</p><p>Article 28. The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals. [Calling for reform = 'counter-revolutionary'. Revolution being the old communist one. Of course, the Party gets to decide what is and isn't counter-revolutionary.]</p><p>Article 52. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities. [Vague. Stacking penalty with any other "violation", since by definition you were also attacking the nation's "unity".]</p><p>Article 54. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland. [It'll be your fellow countrymen enforcing the Party's will on you for violations of the above sections].</p><p>Americans and Europeans are used to the world "constitution" being a list of guaranteed rights of the people which their government is barred from interfering in, with a history going back to at least the 1215 magna carta. China has no such history of the word; their constitution is composed of rights granted to the people at the convenience of the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone brings up the old " China 's constitution protects free speech !
" handwaving almost every time the issue comes up .
Since I note no one has made the appropriate response yet , I guess this time it 's my turn to google up the sections that * completely cancel that guarantee whenever the government feels like it * : Article 51 .
The exercise by citizens of the People 's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state , of society and of the collective , or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.That 's the worst offender , but there are several others that are vague and could ( and are ) twisted into addition the-constitution-strips-your-rights abuses .
My notes in [ ] .Article 25 .
The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development .
[ one-child policy , of which there are accusations of selective enforcement ] Article 28 .
The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities ; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities , and punishes and reforms criminals .
[ Calling for reform = 'counter-revolutionary' .
Revolution being the old communist one .
Of course , the Party gets to decide what is and is n't counter-revolutionary .
] Article 52 .
It is the duty of citizens of the People 's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities .
[ Vague. Stacking penalty with any other " violation " , since by definition you were also attacking the nation 's " unity " .
] Article 54 .
It is the duty of citizens of the People 's Republic of China to safeguard the security , honour and interests of the motherland ; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security , honour and interests of the motherland .
[ It 'll be your fellow countrymen enforcing the Party 's will on you for violations of the above sections ] .Americans and Europeans are used to the world " constitution " being a list of guaranteed rights of the people which their government is barred from interfering in , with a history going back to at least the 1215 magna carta .
China has no such history of the word ; their constitution is composed of rights granted to the people at the convenience of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone brings up the old "China's constitution protects free speech!
" handwaving almost every time the issue comes up.
Since I note no one has made the appropriate response yet, I guess this time it's my turn to google up the sections that *completely cancel that guarantee whenever the government feels like it*:Article 51.
The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.That's the worst offender, but there are several others that are vague and could (and are) twisted into addition the-constitution-strips-your-rights abuses.
My notes in [].Article 25.
The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development.
[one-child policy, of which there are accusations of selective enforcement]Article 28.
The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.
[Calling for reform = 'counter-revolutionary'.
Revolution being the old communist one.
Of course, the Party gets to decide what is and isn't counter-revolutionary.
]Article 52.
It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.
[Vague. Stacking penalty with any other "violation", since by definition you were also attacking the nation's "unity".
]Article 54.
It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland.
[It'll be your fellow countrymen enforcing the Party's will on you for violations of the above sections].Americans and Europeans are used to the world "constitution" being a list of guaranteed rights of the people which their government is barred from interfering in, with a history going back to at least the 1215 magna carta.
China has no such history of the word; their constitution is composed of rights granted to the people at the convenience of the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30771616</id>
	<title>No, Mr. Bond. We expect you to DIE.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am convinced the Google guys are James Bond villains in the making.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am convinced the Google guys are James Bond villains in the making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am convinced the Google guys are James Bond villains in the making.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763584</id>
	<title>After living in China for awhile...</title>
	<author>someones1</author>
	<datestamp>1263482340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an American who has lived in China on-and-off several times for years, I have to say that you can't expect anything that the government does/says to be even nearly logical or otherwise make sense.<br> <br>

My other expat friends and I used to joke that China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is, the closer that you get to China, the less things make sense.  If you've ever visited, then you'll understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an American who has lived in China on-and-off several times for years , I have to say that you ca n't expect anything that the government does/says to be even nearly logical or otherwise make sense .
My other expat friends and I used to joke that China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is , the closer that you get to China , the less things make sense .
If you 've ever visited , then you 'll understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an American who has lived in China on-and-off several times for years, I have to say that you can't expect anything that the government does/says to be even nearly logical or otherwise make sense.
My other expat friends and I used to joke that China was the source of all anti-logic in the world -- that is, the closer that you get to China, the less things make sense.
If you've ever visited, then you'll understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766706</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263493080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Chinese Confucian tradition (which is still very much alive and well), laws are really more "suggestions for proper behavior" than the strict 10 commandments style "Thou shall not" rules we in the west are used to.</p><p>Legal traditions and backgrounds in China are different than in the west.  A well-educated, "fair" Chinese judge will absolutely have a different meaning of the word "law" than an American or European judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Chinese Confucian tradition ( which is still very much alive and well ) , laws are really more " suggestions for proper behavior " than the strict 10 commandments style " Thou shall not " rules we in the west are used to.Legal traditions and backgrounds in China are different than in the west .
A well-educated , " fair " Chinese judge will absolutely have a different meaning of the word " law " than an American or European judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Chinese Confucian tradition (which is still very much alive and well), laws are really more "suggestions for proper behavior" than the strict 10 commandments style "Thou shall not" rules we in the west are used to.Legal traditions and backgrounds in China are different than in the west.
A well-educated, "fair" Chinese judge will absolutely have a different meaning of the word "law" than an American or European judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764498</id>
	<title>20\% projects to be submitted:</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1263486060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Making money off china without playing ball<br>2) Providing a means to get around the Great Firewall<br>3) "Index" Chinese companies and the gov like they've never been "indexed" before.</p><p>China is effectively using a militia to achieve political and economic goals.  And they just pissed of a big company based in a country that's also an economic competitor.  It's going to be like The East India company vs. privateers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Making money off china without playing ball2 ) Providing a means to get around the Great Firewall3 ) " Index " Chinese companies and the gov like they 've never been " indexed " before.China is effectively using a militia to achieve political and economic goals .
And they just pissed of a big company based in a country that 's also an economic competitor .
It 's going to be like The East India company vs. privateers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Making money off china without playing ball2) Providing a means to get around the Great Firewall3) "Index" Chinese companies and the gov like they've never been "indexed" before.China is effectively using a militia to achieve political and economic goals.
And they just pissed of a big company based in a country that's also an economic competitor.
It's going to be like The East India company vs. privateers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763792</id>
	<title>Avoiding questions.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263483420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoided</p></div></blockquote><p>Sometimes, avoiding a question provides are all the answer you need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoidedSometimes , avoiding a question provides are all the answer you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when asked if those laws apply to the government as well it was quickly avoidedSometimes, avoiding a question provides are all the answer you need.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764474</id>
	<title>Re:Local laws? What about their constitution?</title>
	<author>Xenophon Fenderson,</author>
	<datestamp>1263486000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982....</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads (in part), "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", yet defamation is illegal, as is obscenity, incitement to riot, crime-facilitating speech, etc.  If American jurisprudence allows what we generally consider reasonable abridgments of the freedom of speech in contradiction to the plain meaning of the First Amendment, why would we expect Chinese jurists to reason differently?  Or so the argument could go.  I'm not sure that I agree - hell, I think American jurists get it wrong a lot of the time, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982... . The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads ( in part ) , " Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech " , yet defamation is illegal , as is obscenity , incitement to riot , crime-facilitating speech , etc .
If American jurisprudence allows what we generally consider reasonable abridgments of the freedom of speech in contradiction to the plain meaning of the First Amendment , why would we expect Chinese jurists to reason differently ?
Or so the argument could go .
I 'm not sure that I agree - hell , I think American jurists get it wrong a lot of the time , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese constitution has allowed free speech since 1982....
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads (in part), "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", yet defamation is illegal, as is obscenity, incitement to riot, crime-facilitating speech, etc.
If American jurisprudence allows what we generally consider reasonable abridgments of the freedom of speech in contradiction to the plain meaning of the First Amendment, why would we expect Chinese jurists to reason differently?
Or so the argument could go.
I'm not sure that I agree - hell, I think American jurists get it wrong a lot of the time, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764750</id>
	<title>How quaint.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws</i></p><p>I thought that everyone knew that US laws surpassed all and any other laws. The natives are indeed getting a bit uppity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local lawsI thought that everyone knew that US laws surpassed all and any other laws .
The natives are indeed getting a bit uppity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said on Thursday that all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local lawsI thought that everyone knew that US laws surpassed all and any other laws.
The natives are indeed getting a bit uppity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764984</id>
	<title>Re:Fly on the wall -i'll pass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be better off listening to a forum bot spout crap than T. Blair. At least the bot would tell the truth once in a while out of sheer statistical averages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be better off listening to a forum bot spout crap than T. Blair. At least the bot would tell the truth once in a while out of sheer statistical averages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be better off listening to a forum bot spout crap than T. Blair. At least the bot would tell the truth once in a while out of sheer statistical averages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766540</id>
	<title>Google should pull out just like Hitler's dad</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1263492540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has all these laws which they enforce against Google and other American companies, but they think that they are above the law. They believe what Nixon said in the Frost/Nixon interviews, "When the president does it, it's not illegal." The Chinese government thinks that the laws don't apply to them and can do whatever they want, while at the same time they enforce these laws on others. It is completely hypocritical. China doesn't deserve Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has all these laws which they enforce against Google and other American companies , but they think that they are above the law .
They believe what Nixon said in the Frost/Nixon interviews , " When the president does it , it 's not illegal .
" The Chinese government thinks that the laws do n't apply to them and can do whatever they want , while at the same time they enforce these laws on others .
It is completely hypocritical .
China does n't deserve Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has all these laws which they enforce against Google and other American companies, but they think that they are above the law.
They believe what Nixon said in the Frost/Nixon interviews, "When the president does it, it's not illegal.
" The Chinese government thinks that the laws don't apply to them and can do whatever they want, while at the same time they enforce these laws on others.
It is completely hypocritical.
China doesn't deserve Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763694</id>
	<title>Re:China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1263482880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you honestly think that the US doesn't also have the same? Do you seriously think the US hasn't invested a substantial amount of resources into a similar effort? And several other nations as well... I think the point is this - most major nations that view intelligence and counter-intelligence as being important and worth spending resources on are probably more advanced in their cyberwarfare capabilities than most people realize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you honestly think that the US does n't also have the same ?
Do you seriously think the US has n't invested a substantial amount of resources into a similar effort ?
And several other nations as well... I think the point is this - most major nations that view intelligence and counter-intelligence as being important and worth spending resources on are probably more advanced in their cyberwarfare capabilities than most people realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you honestly think that the US doesn't also have the same?
Do you seriously think the US hasn't invested a substantial amount of resources into a similar effort?
And several other nations as well... I think the point is this - most major nations that view intelligence and counter-intelligence as being important and worth spending resources on are probably more advanced in their cyberwarfare capabilities than most people realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763330</id>
	<title>the expected response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think anyone could have realistically expected China to respond differently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone could have realistically expected China to respond differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone could have realistically expected China to respond differently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765600</id>
	<title>Laws?</title>
	<author>Kartoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1263489480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every $EVIL\_GOVERNMENT has laws, too.  Doesn't make them right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every $ EVIL \ _GOVERNMENT has laws , too .
Does n't make them right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every $EVIL\_GOVERNMENT has laws, too.
Doesn't make them right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768298</id>
	<title>Re:China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1263498060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so the west is a lot better at DSV's read cryptonomicon if you cant get what I am hinting at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the west is a lot better at DSV 's read cryptonomicon if you cant get what I am hinting at : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the west is a lot better at DSV's read cryptonomicon if you cant get what I am hinting at :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766944</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263493920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who controls the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn TLD?  And who grants trademark protection in China?</p><p>
What makes you think a Chinese Google clone wouldn't be hosted on china.cn and using Google's log and brand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who controls the .cn TLD ?
And who grants trademark protection in China ?
What makes you think a Chinese Google clone would n't be hosted on china.cn and using Google 's log and brand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who controls the .cn TLD?
And who grants trademark protection in China?
What makes you think a Chinese Google clone wouldn't be hosted on china.cn and using Google's log and brand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763660</id>
	<title>republicans tag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that a joke about "The People's Republic of China" moniker. Or is there some more obvious aspect I'm missing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a joke about " The People 's Republic of China " moniker .
Or is there some more obvious aspect I 'm missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a joke about "The People's Republic of China" moniker.
Or is there some more obvious aspect I'm missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763582</id>
	<title>rocar raws?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263482340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rocar raws?  WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rocar raws ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rocar raws?
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763326</id>
	<title>Yes we have laws!</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1263480600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you will stop trying to apply them to us because we wrote them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you will stop trying to apply them to us because we wrote them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you will stop trying to apply them to us because we wrote them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763362</id>
	<title>Laws</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1263480780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>That, of course, is true in any country in which a company operates. If censoring content is part of the rules that Google must follow in order to operate in China, they'll either have to back down from their new anti-censorship stance, pull out of China as threatened, or break the law. I expect it will be one of the first two.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws ...That , of course , is true in any country in which a company operates .
If censoring content is part of the rules that Google must follow in order to operate in China , they 'll either have to back down from their new anti-censorship stance , pull out of China as threatened , or break the law .
I expect it will be one of the first two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws ...That, of course, is true in any country in which a company operates.
If censoring content is part of the rules that Google must follow in order to operate in China, they'll either have to back down from their new anti-censorship stance, pull out of China as threatened, or break the law.
I expect it will be one of the first two.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765646</id>
	<title>Re:OK, how is China different from the US exactly?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263489660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US government were to do this, Google would have recourse through the courts, which are an independent branch of government. Also, the right to petition for redress of grievances is codified in our Constitution; granted the government has been ignoring other parts of the Constitution more and more over the years, that part has yet to be completely gutted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US government were to do this , Google would have recourse through the courts , which are an independent branch of government .
Also , the right to petition for redress of grievances is codified in our Constitution ; granted the government has been ignoring other parts of the Constitution more and more over the years , that part has yet to be completely gutted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US government were to do this, Google would have recourse through the courts, which are an independent branch of government.
Also, the right to petition for redress of grievances is codified in our Constitution; granted the government has been ignoring other parts of the Constitution more and more over the years, that part has yet to be completely gutted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765336</id>
	<title>Google.cn will become a redirect to baidu.com</title>
	<author>slugmass</author>
	<datestamp>1263488520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simple prediction is that the Chinese government will make google.cn redirect to baidu.com. If the rabid slashdot speculation about l33t Chinese hackers, let us call them Chackers, stealing Google's code is correct, they can create a Google.cn golem datacenter and carry on google.cn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A simple prediction is that the Chinese government will make google.cn redirect to baidu.com .
If the rabid slashdot speculation about l33t Chinese hackers , let us call them Chackers , stealing Google 's code is correct , they can create a Google.cn golem datacenter and carry on google.cn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simple prediction is that the Chinese government will make google.cn redirect to baidu.com.
If the rabid slashdot speculation about l33t Chinese hackers, let us call them Chackers, stealing Google's code is correct, they can create a Google.cn golem datacenter and carry on google.cn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352</id>
	<title>China's Capability to Conduct Cyber Warfare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>China is probaby way more advanced in conducting Cyber Warfare than most people realise.
<p>
Reading the link below, you will realise that china state hackers</p><p>
1) have dedicated datacenters for them</p><p>
2) Work around the clock in 3 shifts during each 24 hours</p><p>
3) Have specialised teams for things like a) Break in b) Data stealing c) Footprinting</p><p>

<a href="http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman\_PRC\_Cyber\_Paper\_FINAL\_Approved\%20Report\_16Oct2009.pdf" title="uscc.gov">Capability of the People&rsquo;s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation</a> [uscc.gov]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is probaby way more advanced in conducting Cyber Warfare than most people realise .
Reading the link below , you will realise that china state hackers 1 ) have dedicated datacenters for them 2 ) Work around the clock in 3 shifts during each 24 hours 3 ) Have specialised teams for things like a ) Break in b ) Data stealing c ) Footprinting Capability of the People    s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation [ uscc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is probaby way more advanced in conducting Cyber Warfare than most people realise.
Reading the link below, you will realise that china state hackers
1) have dedicated datacenters for them
2) Work around the clock in 3 shifts during each 24 hours
3) Have specialised teams for things like a) Break in b) Data stealing c) Footprinting

Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation [uscc.gov]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763498</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrits</title>
	<author>fajoli</author>
	<datestamp>1263481980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google. </i></p><p>The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users.  I think any Google-like operation "in the hands fo the Chinese" would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users.  How comfortable would people be sending private emails to <i>someone@china-run-google-clone.cn</i> or watching videos on <i>china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google * exacly * as they like it , and not like before with 'cooperation ' from google .
The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users .
I think any Google-like operation " in the hands fo the Chinese " would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users .
How comfortable would people be sending private emails to someone @ china-run-google-clone.cn or watching videos on china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google.
The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users.
I think any Google-like operation "in the hands fo the Chinese" would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users.
How comfortable would people be sending private emails to someone@china-run-google-clone.cn or watching videos on china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30769500</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google even have a choice any longer?</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1263502080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. My prediction is that Google will be intact in China, because Google is too large and famous for the government to confront. The government has been playing low key in foreign affairs for long times. They would do the same this time, just sit and wait this matter loses its steam. At meantime, their Great Firewall can just filter out the content by itself, much like what it did before google.cn was set up. (In fact, I have no idea why Google needs to set up google.cn in the first place, other than trying to sell ads; people in China could access google.com and the government couldn't successfully block it due to large number of citizen complains.)
<p>Democracy is relatively. Nobody, not even the toughest dictator, can afford to anger a large number of people. Chinese government knows this very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
My prediction is that Google will be intact in China , because Google is too large and famous for the government to confront .
The government has been playing low key in foreign affairs for long times .
They would do the same this time , just sit and wait this matter loses its steam .
At meantime , their Great Firewall can just filter out the content by itself , much like what it did before google.cn was set up .
( In fact , I have no idea why Google needs to set up google.cn in the first place , other than trying to sell ads ; people in China could access google.com and the government could n't successfully block it due to large number of citizen complains .
) Democracy is relatively .
Nobody , not even the toughest dictator , can afford to anger a large number of people .
Chinese government knows this very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
My prediction is that Google will be intact in China, because Google is too large and famous for the government to confront.
The government has been playing low key in foreign affairs for long times.
They would do the same this time, just sit and wait this matter loses its steam.
At meantime, their Great Firewall can just filter out the content by itself, much like what it did before google.cn was set up.
(In fact, I have no idea why Google needs to set up google.cn in the first place, other than trying to sell ads; people in China could access google.com and the government couldn't successfully block it due to large number of citizen complains.
)
Democracy is relatively.
Nobody, not even the toughest dictator, can afford to anger a large number of people.
Chinese government knows this very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763450</id>
	<title>steep price</title>
	<author>BBird</author>
	<datestamp>1263481500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we will all pay a steep price for our hypocrisy contempt and cowardice towards China human rights abuse, censorship, lies and manipulation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we will all pay a steep price for our hypocrisy contempt and cowardice towards China human rights abuse , censorship , lies and manipulation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will all pay a steep price for our hypocrisy contempt and cowardice towards China human rights abuse, censorship, lies and manipulation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30776960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1321218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30769500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30769500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30768298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30767634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30776960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30765012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30764344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30772082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30766686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1321218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1321218.30763358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
