<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_1513245</id>
	<title>IBM Patenting Airport Profiling Technology</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263916560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"InformationWeek's Wolfe's Den reports that IBM has filed a dozen applications to <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222301388">patent a sophisticated airport security system</a> which supports passive software-based profiling of potentially dangerous passengers off of pre-programmed rules. The setup uses a collection of sensors &mdash; video, motion, biometric and even olfactory &mdash; in terminals and around the airport perimeter, to supply raw data. 'These patents are built on the inference engine, which [analyzes sensor data and] has the ability to calculate very large data sets in real time,' says co-inventor Roger Angell. A small grid of networked computers delivers the necessary processing power. Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security, analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, '<a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220090232357\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20090232357&amp;RS=DN/20090232357">Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements</a>,' as well as measuring respiratory patterns."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " InformationWeek 's Wolfe 's Den reports that IBM has filed a dozen applications to patent a sophisticated airport security system which supports passive software-based profiling of potentially dangerous passengers off of pre-programmed rules .
The setup uses a collection of sensors    video , motion , biometric and even olfactory    in terminals and around the airport perimeter , to supply raw data .
'These patents are built on the inference engine , which [ analyzes sensor data and ] has the ability to calculate very large data sets in real time, ' says co-inventor Roger Angell .
A small grid of networked computers delivers the necessary processing power .
Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security , analyzing furtive glances to detect , according to the title of the patent application , 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements, ' as well as measuring respiratory patterns .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek's Wolfe's Den reports that IBM has filed a dozen applications to patent a sophisticated airport security system which supports passive software-based profiling of potentially dangerous passengers off of pre-programmed rules.
The setup uses a collection of sensors — video, motion, biometric and even olfactory — in terminals and around the airport perimeter, to supply raw data.
'These patents are built on the inference engine, which [analyzes sensor data and] has the ability to calculate very large data sets in real time,' says co-inventor Roger Angell.
A small grid of networked computers delivers the necessary processing power.
Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security, analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements,' as well as measuring respiratory patterns.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30825342</id>
	<title>Re:Second Post</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1263899280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a person with a natural nystagmus, I'm skeptical of profiling based on eye movements.  However, for you to assume that their profiling technique will generate a false positive on anyone afraid of flying - especially when you have no idea what patterns of eye movement they're looking for - is nonsense.  Trying to predict specific failure modes for security theater is one of the more ironic failures of debating technique I can think of.</p><p>Your profiling method is less expensive, but it is not more reliable as you suggest.  It, too, will generate a lot of false positives; and once the terrorist organizations know what you're looking for, it will start generating false negatives as well.</p><p>Profiling is just an attempt to stop the attack you saw last time.  It does nothing to stop the attack that comes next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a person with a natural nystagmus , I 'm skeptical of profiling based on eye movements .
However , for you to assume that their profiling technique will generate a false positive on anyone afraid of flying - especially when you have no idea what patterns of eye movement they 're looking for - is nonsense .
Trying to predict specific failure modes for security theater is one of the more ironic failures of debating technique I can think of.Your profiling method is less expensive , but it is not more reliable as you suggest .
It , too , will generate a lot of false positives ; and once the terrorist organizations know what you 're looking for , it will start generating false negatives as well.Profiling is just an attempt to stop the attack you saw last time .
It does nothing to stop the attack that comes next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a person with a natural nystagmus, I'm skeptical of profiling based on eye movements.
However, for you to assume that their profiling technique will generate a false positive on anyone afraid of flying - especially when you have no idea what patterns of eye movement they're looking for - is nonsense.
Trying to predict specific failure modes for security theater is one of the more ironic failures of debating technique I can think of.Your profiling method is less expensive, but it is not more reliable as you suggest.
It, too, will generate a lot of false positives; and once the terrorist organizations know what you're looking for, it will start generating false negatives as well.Profiling is just an attempt to stop the attack you saw last time.
It does nothing to stop the attack that comes next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820004</id>
	<title>Patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new whipping boy that SCO has fallen off the narrow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. radar. Hoo-freaking-ray!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new whipping boy that SCO has fallen off the narrow / .
radar. Hoo-freaking-ray ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new whipping boy that SCO has fallen off the narrow /.
radar. Hoo-freaking-ray!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823674</id>
	<title>This technology is incomplete...</title>
	<author>ItsJustAPseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1263891720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...unless they also manage to watch for people that are furtively scratching their crotches.  Only a crotch-bomber would ever do such a thing.<br> <br>

They might get a few false positives from baseball players, though.  Crotch-bombers and baseball players.<br> <br>

And maybe guys.  Crotch-bombers and baseball players and guys.  Then they're all set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless they also manage to watch for people that are furtively scratching their crotches .
Only a crotch-bomber would ever do such a thing .
They might get a few false positives from baseball players , though .
Crotch-bombers and baseball players .
And maybe guys .
Crotch-bombers and baseball players and guys .
Then they 're all set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unless they also manage to watch for people that are furtively scratching their crotches.
Only a crotch-bomber would ever do such a thing.
They might get a few false positives from baseball players, though.
Crotch-bombers and baseball players.
And maybe guys.
Crotch-bombers and baseball players and guys.
Then they're all set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820516</id>
	<title>Device to "smell&rdquo; snake oil, identify terror</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1263922500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://newstechnica.com/2009/11/04/device-that-smells-snake-oil-could-identify-terrorists/" title="newstechnica.com">A device claimed to &ldquo;smell&rdquo; snake oil</a> [newstechnica.com] is being marketed as identifying terrorists by detecting &ldquo;snake pheromones&rdquo; in sweat.</p><p>&ldquo;The challenge lies in the characterisation and identification of the specific chemical that gives away the signature of complete bollocks,&rdquo; said project leader Professor Tong Sun of City University, &ldquo;especially the fear of losing funding for security theatre. If we can reliably detect this fear, we should be able to land some eyewateringly lucrative contracts in the very near future.&rdquo;</p><p>The research is funded by the Home Office. &ldquo;The project relies on a government with a firm commitment to policy-based science, but the Tories look as craven over David Nutt&rsquo;s firing as Labour, so we should be coining it in for a good while yet.&rdquo;</p><p>The technology will assist airport security officers in picking out suitable subjects. Sensors can reliably detect if someone is a bit brown, or a bit foreign-looking, or has a non-Anglo-Saxon name, or if they might be thinking of giving cheek to security officers. It will work in conjunction with the millimetre-wave &ldquo;naked&rdquo; radar, currently used to identify terrorist subjects with large breasts.</p><p>The false positive rate will be only 5\% on a terrorist detection rate of 1 in 100,000, meaning only 99.95\% of subjects flagged will be a complete waste of time to finger up the arse with a latex glove. &ldquo;But we&rsquo;re sure the government will agree that mere statistical evidence is meaningless in the face of the vital necessity to send the right message,&rdquo; said Prof Sun, &ldquo;that if you make trouble the government will quite literally forcibly fuck you in the arse until you bleed. So just shut the fuck up and keep giving us money.&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A device claimed to    smell    snake oil [ newstechnica.com ] is being marketed as identifying terrorists by detecting    snake pheromones    in sweat.    The challenge lies in the characterisation and identification of the specific chemical that gives away the signature of complete bollocks ,    said project leader Professor Tong Sun of City University ,    especially the fear of losing funding for security theatre .
If we can reliably detect this fear , we should be able to land some eyewateringly lucrative contracts in the very near future.    The research is funded by the Home Office .
   The project relies on a government with a firm commitment to policy-based science , but the Tories look as craven over David Nutt    s firing as Labour , so we should be coining it in for a good while yet.    The technology will assist airport security officers in picking out suitable subjects .
Sensors can reliably detect if someone is a bit brown , or a bit foreign-looking , or has a non-Anglo-Saxon name , or if they might be thinking of giving cheek to security officers .
It will work in conjunction with the millimetre-wave    naked    radar , currently used to identify terrorist subjects with large breasts.The false positive rate will be only 5 \ % on a terrorist detection rate of 1 in 100,000 , meaning only 99.95 \ % of subjects flagged will be a complete waste of time to finger up the arse with a latex glove .
   But we    re sure the government will agree that mere statistical evidence is meaningless in the face of the vital necessity to send the right message ,    said Prof Sun ,    that if you make trouble the government will quite literally forcibly fuck you in the arse until you bleed .
So just shut the fuck up and keep giving us money.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A device claimed to “smell” snake oil [newstechnica.com] is being marketed as identifying terrorists by detecting “snake pheromones” in sweat.“The challenge lies in the characterisation and identification of the specific chemical that gives away the signature of complete bollocks,” said project leader Professor Tong Sun of City University, “especially the fear of losing funding for security theatre.
If we can reliably detect this fear, we should be able to land some eyewateringly lucrative contracts in the very near future.”The research is funded by the Home Office.
“The project relies on a government with a firm commitment to policy-based science, but the Tories look as craven over David Nutt’s firing as Labour, so we should be coining it in for a good while yet.”The technology will assist airport security officers in picking out suitable subjects.
Sensors can reliably detect if someone is a bit brown, or a bit foreign-looking, or has a non-Anglo-Saxon name, or if they might be thinking of giving cheek to security officers.
It will work in conjunction with the millimetre-wave “naked” radar, currently used to identify terrorist subjects with large breasts.The false positive rate will be only 5\% on a terrorist detection rate of 1 in 100,000, meaning only 99.95\% of subjects flagged will be a complete waste of time to finger up the arse with a latex glove.
“But we’re sure the government will agree that mere statistical evidence is meaningless in the face of the vital necessity to send the right message,” said Prof Sun, “that if you make trouble the government will quite literally forcibly fuck you in the arse until you bleed.
So just shut the fuck up and keep giving us money.”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821980</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airplanes?</p><p>You believe the AIRPLANES knocked down the WTC on 9/11?</p><p>The buildings were imploded. Just look at WTC 7, which wasn't even hit.</p><p>And such "perfect" collapses, like it was engineered (since it was).</p><p>And the airplanes weren't hijacked, but hacked, flown into the buildings by remote control.</p><p>9/11 was an inside job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airplanes ? You believe the AIRPLANES knocked down the WTC on 9/11 ? The buildings were imploded .
Just look at WTC 7 , which was n't even hit.And such " perfect " collapses , like it was engineered ( since it was ) .And the airplanes were n't hijacked , but hacked , flown into the buildings by remote control.9/11 was an inside job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airplanes?You believe the AIRPLANES knocked down the WTC on 9/11?The buildings were imploded.
Just look at WTC 7, which wasn't even hit.And such "perfect" collapses, like it was engineered (since it was).And the airplanes weren't hijacked, but hacked, flown into the buildings by remote control.9/11 was an inside job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822120</id>
	<title>The only possible upside to this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could we at least bring what we wanted into the plane again? Cut down on security? Allow people to meet their S.O.s after they come off the plane? Bring things back to the good old days?</p><p>Because obviously this technology is so great, and all.</p><p>Something tells me, though, that we will be subjected to this in ADDITION to the security theater we are already forced to endure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we at least bring what we wanted into the plane again ?
Cut down on security ?
Allow people to meet their S.O.s after they come off the plane ?
Bring things back to the good old days ? Because obviously this technology is so great , and all.Something tells me , though , that we will be subjected to this in ADDITION to the security theater we are already forced to endure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we at least bring what we wanted into the plane again?
Cut down on security?
Allow people to meet their S.O.s after they come off the plane?
Bring things back to the good old days?Because obviously this technology is so great, and all.Something tells me, though, that we will be subjected to this in ADDITION to the security theater we are already forced to endure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820806</id>
	<title>How could a "false positive" ever fight this?</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263923700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Our machines have determined that you are a security risk. Our machines aren't capable of stating any reason, so there is nothing you can point to to clear yourself. Our machines just have a hunch, a gut feeling based on their heuristics and rules. We can tell you what the heuristics and rules are, but not how applying them led to your identification as a security risk. You can cross-examine the people who wrote those rules in court, and they will testify that the code contains no known bugs, but you cannot cross-examine the machine that actually made the identification in court."</p><p>As always, inexorable mathematics guarantee that most of the identifications will be false positives. Say the machine fingers one traveller in ten thousand, and one traveller in a million is a terrorist; then even if it correctly identifies every terrorist, 99\% of its identifications will be false positives. If you don't like those numbers, plug in whatever ones you think are plausible.</p><p>If this happened to me I would be so upset and hostile that it would induce suspicious behavior in me, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our machines have determined that you are a security risk .
Our machines are n't capable of stating any reason , so there is nothing you can point to to clear yourself .
Our machines just have a hunch , a gut feeling based on their heuristics and rules .
We can tell you what the heuristics and rules are , but not how applying them led to your identification as a security risk .
You can cross-examine the people who wrote those rules in court , and they will testify that the code contains no known bugs , but you can not cross-examine the machine that actually made the identification in court .
" As always , inexorable mathematics guarantee that most of the identifications will be false positives .
Say the machine fingers one traveller in ten thousand , and one traveller in a million is a terrorist ; then even if it correctly identifies every terrorist , 99 \ % of its identifications will be false positives .
If you do n't like those numbers , plug in whatever ones you think are plausible.If this happened to me I would be so upset and hostile that it would induce suspicious behavior in me , creating a self-fulfilling prophecy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our machines have determined that you are a security risk.
Our machines aren't capable of stating any reason, so there is nothing you can point to to clear yourself.
Our machines just have a hunch, a gut feeling based on their heuristics and rules.
We can tell you what the heuristics and rules are, but not how applying them led to your identification as a security risk.
You can cross-examine the people who wrote those rules in court, and they will testify that the code contains no known bugs, but you cannot cross-examine the machine that actually made the identification in court.
"As always, inexorable mathematics guarantee that most of the identifications will be false positives.
Say the machine fingers one traveller in ten thousand, and one traveller in a million is a terrorist; then even if it correctly identifies every terrorist, 99\% of its identifications will be false positives.
If you don't like those numbers, plug in whatever ones you think are plausible.If this happened to me I would be so upset and hostile that it would induce suspicious behavior in me, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820600</id>
	<title>You blame the wrong people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, some politically-motivated criminals hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings.</p><p>Since then, the real terrorism has been carried out by Americans against each other.  Media, government, law enforcement, local politicians -- all jumping on the bandwagon to terrorize their populace and make them easily give away the rights their ancestors FOUGHT AND DIED FOR.</p><p>We should not be afraid of terrorists, in fact we should LAUGH AT THEM and openly mock them.  (And kill them whenever the chance arises, of course).  But those who would give away their liberty for a little temporary security (or worse, for the illusion of security!  For "security theatre"!) deserve neither liberty nor security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , some politically-motivated criminals hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings.Since then , the real terrorism has been carried out by Americans against each other .
Media , government , law enforcement , local politicians -- all jumping on the bandwagon to terrorize their populace and make them easily give away the rights their ancestors FOUGHT AND DIED FOR.We should not be afraid of terrorists , in fact we should LAUGH AT THEM and openly mock them .
( And kill them whenever the chance arises , of course ) .
But those who would give away their liberty for a little temporary security ( or worse , for the illusion of security !
For " security theatre " !
) deserve neither liberty nor security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, some politically-motivated criminals hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings.Since then, the real terrorism has been carried out by Americans against each other.
Media, government, law enforcement, local politicians -- all jumping on the bandwagon to terrorize their populace and make them easily give away the rights their ancestors FOUGHT AND DIED FOR.We should not be afraid of terrorists, in fact we should LAUGH AT THEM and openly mock them.
(And kill them whenever the chance arises, of course).
But those who would give away their liberty for a little temporary security (or worse, for the illusion of security!
For "security theatre"!
) deserve neither liberty nor security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820520</id>
	<title>How funny it would be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To hand out free curry and kebabs outside of security control.</p><p>Funny for bystanders when you get towed in by security for terrorist activities, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To hand out free curry and kebabs outside of security control.Funny for bystanders when you get towed in by security for terrorist activities , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To hand out free curry and kebabs outside of security control.Funny for bystanders when you get towed in by security for terrorist activities, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820590</id>
	<title>Too Small a Scope ...</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would be better off patenting application of science to everyday problems (beware not to forget) by use of a computing device.
<br> <br>
On a side note, I am sure that these 'see thru' scanner <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1950206/Airport-Scanners-Can-Store-and-Transmit-Images" title="slashdot.org">pictures</a> [slashdot.org] will be part of the game, as I <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1506444&amp;cid=30734774" title="slashdot.org">anticipated</a> [slashdot.org].
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would be better off patenting application of science to everyday problems ( beware not to forget ) by use of a computing device .
On a side note , I am sure that these 'see thru ' scanner pictures [ slashdot.org ] will be part of the game , as I anticipated [ slashdot.org ] .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would be better off patenting application of science to everyday problems (beware not to forget) by use of a computing device.
On a side note, I am sure that these 'see thru' scanner pictures [slashdot.org] will be part of the game, as I anticipated [slashdot.org].
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821202</id>
	<title>Re:You know what?</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think I'll just drive or take Amtrak.</p></div><p>Which begs the question: Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes?</p><p>If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count, I'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert OR ride a ferry OR catch the premiere of a blockbuster movie/opera/theatrical production in the largest theater that I can find and the list goes on...</p><p>Sure, the security theater that's going on now isn't doing anything to curb terrorism but even if it did, it's safe to assume that they would simply change targets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll just drive or take Amtrak.Which begs the question : Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes ? If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count , I 'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert OR ride a ferry OR catch the premiere of a blockbuster movie/opera/theatrical production in the largest theater that I can find and the list goes on...Sure , the security theater that 's going on now is n't doing anything to curb terrorism but even if it did , it 's safe to assume that they would simply change targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'll just drive or take Amtrak.Which begs the question: Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes?If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count, I'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert OR ride a ferry OR catch the premiere of a blockbuster movie/opera/theatrical production in the largest theater that I can find and the list goes on...Sure, the security theater that's going on now isn't doing anything to curb terrorism but even if it did, it's safe to assume that they would simply change targets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820498</id>
	<title>Arousal, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With these advanced sensors, they can observe pupil dilation, increased heart rate, perspiration, and rapid breathing. This is especially handy considering the fact that all terrorists are sporting a woody to the notion of a 72some. But hey, if all else fails, the technology will at least let the security guards know who to hit on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With these advanced sensors , they can observe pupil dilation , increased heart rate , perspiration , and rapid breathing .
This is especially handy considering the fact that all terrorists are sporting a woody to the notion of a 72some .
But hey , if all else fails , the technology will at least let the security guards know who to hit on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With these advanced sensors, they can observe pupil dilation, increased heart rate, perspiration, and rapid breathing.
This is especially handy considering the fact that all terrorists are sporting a woody to the notion of a 72some.
But hey, if all else fails, the technology will at least let the security guards know who to hit on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30834296</id>
	<title>Re:You know what?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264011840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Which begs the question: Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes?
<br>
If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count, I'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find</i> <br> <br>Be far more effective to deliberatly cause a derailment<br> <br> <i>OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert</i> <br> <br>A terrorist called David Copeland used nail bombs in london in 1999, but he wasn't a "suicide bomber" nor was Ted Kaczynski. Kaczynski was known as the "Unabomber", short for "University and Airline Bomber"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which begs the question : Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes ?
If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count , I 'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find Be far more effective to deliberatly cause a derailment OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert A terrorist called David Copeland used nail bombs in london in 1999 , but he was n't a " suicide bomber " nor was Ted Kaczynski .
Kaczynski was known as the " Unabomber " , short for " University and Airline Bomber " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which begs the question: Why do terrorists insist on blowing up airplanes?
If my goal was to instill fear and a high body count, I'd just wear an explosive ladden vest and sit in the first car of the longest passenger train that I can find  Be far more effective to deliberatly cause a derailment  OR wrap said explosives in nails and wait in line at a concert  A terrorist called David Copeland used nail bombs in london in 1999, but he wasn't a "suicide bomber" nor was Ted Kaczynski.
Kaczynski was known as the "Unabomber", short for "University and Airline Bomber"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820862</id>
	<title>Analyzing furtive glances?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Analyzing furtive glances", ey?</p><p>So every time a pretty lady walks through the airport, there are 250 terrorist alarms going off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Analyzing furtive glances " , ey ? So every time a pretty lady walks through the airport , there are 250 terrorist alarms going off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Analyzing furtive glances", ey?So every time a pretty lady walks through the airport, there are 250 terrorist alarms going off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820698</id>
	<title>Re:I smell a rat</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263923340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those old factories smell bad, don't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those old factories smell bad , do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those old factories smell bad, don't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823946</id>
	<title>Re:Second Post</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263892980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements,' as well as measuring respiratory patterns</p></div></blockquote><p>Just great!<br>Now they can profile people that are deathly afraid of flying (like my brother) and further traumatize them, profiling them as terrorists and treating them as such.</p><p>Why don't they just stick to the old reliable method of profiling: Young male non US citizen, buying ticket with cash, one way to America, NO LUGGAGE, originating in a terrorist hot-bed country.</p><p>This method is clearly a no-brainer and doesn't require any expensive security theater<br>Of course, even that method didn't work last time, what sane person would think this new method will</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>analyzing furtive glances to detect , according to the title of the patent application , 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements, ' as well as measuring respiratory patternsJust great ! Now they can profile people that are deathly afraid of flying ( like my brother ) and further traumatize them , profiling them as terrorists and treating them as such.Why do n't they just stick to the old reliable method of profiling : Young male non US citizen , buying ticket with cash , one way to America , NO LUGGAGE , originating in a terrorist hot-bed country.This method is clearly a no-brainer and does n't require any expensive security theaterOf course , even that method did n't work last time , what sane person would think this new method will</tokentext>
<sentencetext>analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements,' as well as measuring respiratory patternsJust great!Now they can profile people that are deathly afraid of flying (like my brother) and further traumatize them, profiling them as terrorists and treating them as such.Why don't they just stick to the old reliable method of profiling: Young male non US citizen, buying ticket with cash, one way to America, NO LUGGAGE, originating in a terrorist hot-bed country.This method is clearly a no-brainer and doesn't require any expensive security theaterOf course, even that method didn't work last time, what sane person would think this new method will
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821756</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, IBM will patent terrorism next and no one will be able to plant bombs without risking a *huge* lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , IBM will patent terrorism next and no one will be able to plant bombs without risking a * huge * lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, IBM will patent terrorism next and no one will be able to plant bombs without risking a *huge* lawsuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822084</id>
	<title>analyzing furtive glances</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>er, wouldn't the 'terr'ists' kinda act normal so as not to attract suspicion ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>er , would n't the 'terr'ists ' kinda act normal so as not to attract suspicion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er, wouldn't the 'terr'ists' kinda act normal so as not to attract suspicion ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30825122</id>
	<title>reminds me of a book I read</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe it was Footfall? but maybe some other book, sci-fi anyhow.  In it the earth had been invaded by aliens.  They had telepathic powers and could tell when they were going to be attacked.  One group of people found a kid they were able to train (of Arabic descent if I'm not mistaken) who could keep his mind clear of angry and destructive thoughts as he stalked aliens.  He would think in his mind how beautiful, and admirable, and majestic the aliens as he pulled the trigger.  His advent eventually drove the aliens insane, or off the planet.  Seems to me that such a person would easily get past IBMs awesome trap.  Really they are after people with no self control who are nervous about what they are doing etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe it was Footfall ?
but maybe some other book , sci-fi anyhow .
In it the earth had been invaded by aliens .
They had telepathic powers and could tell when they were going to be attacked .
One group of people found a kid they were able to train ( of Arabic descent if I 'm not mistaken ) who could keep his mind clear of angry and destructive thoughts as he stalked aliens .
He would think in his mind how beautiful , and admirable , and majestic the aliens as he pulled the trigger .
His advent eventually drove the aliens insane , or off the planet .
Seems to me that such a person would easily get past IBMs awesome trap .
Really they are after people with no self control who are nervous about what they are doing etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe it was Footfall?
but maybe some other book, sci-fi anyhow.
In it the earth had been invaded by aliens.
They had telepathic powers and could tell when they were going to be attacked.
One group of people found a kid they were able to train (of Arabic descent if I'm not mistaken) who could keep his mind clear of angry and destructive thoughts as he stalked aliens.
He would think in his mind how beautiful, and admirable, and majestic the aliens as he pulled the trigger.
His advent eventually drove the aliens insane, or off the planet.
Seems to me that such a person would easily get past IBMs awesome trap.
Really they are after people with no self control who are nervous about what they are doing etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30832356</id>
	<title>Just wait until the thing bluescreens in rush hour</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry folks, our sophisticated computer system that protects you has blue screened.  Please exit the terminal and we will process everybody through security again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry folks , our sophisticated computer system that protects you has blue screened .
Please exit the terminal and we will process everybody through security again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry folks, our sophisticated computer system that protects you has blue screened.
Please exit the terminal and we will process everybody through security again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820356</id>
	<title>IBM has a track record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after all, didn't  they provide sophisticated technology for efficiently tracking and "managing" people who were  not like the ordinary folks to a certain German government in the past ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after all , did n't they provide sophisticated technology for efficiently tracking and " managing " people who were not like the ordinary folks to a certain German government in the past ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after all, didn't  they provide sophisticated technology for efficiently tracking and "managing" people who were  not like the ordinary folks to a certain German government in the past ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820472</id>
	<title>This is insane.</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1263922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is bound to be a high false positive rate with this system. Out of millions of people that will be profiled by this system <b>per day</b>, how many actual terrorist are there? Perhaps one or two a year?
<p>
Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others? I don't think so.</p><p>

So really, in their efforts to find a needle in a haystack, many innocent people are going to be harassed. </p><p>

Also, also with the needle in the haystack issue, I don't see this system effective in catching all actual terrorists, since they will be doing their best to "blend in" with the crowd and not stick out anyway.</p><p>

So expect to have high failure rates of both type 1 and type 2 natures.</p><p>

And so, the billions of dollars to deploy this system is justified how?
</p><p>

Not to mention all the civil rights issues with the government monitoring your biometrics without your consent or knowledge. Who knows what will be done with the data, and how it may affect you in the future? There are expectations of privacy violations here, which will be fought out in the courts.</p><p>

Meanwhile, another "terrorist" will go "BOO", and you'll see hearings and blame-pointing and everything else at why this high-tech expensive system failed to catch the needle in a very big haystack "terrorist".</p><p>

And now I am about to cause the paranoid US to spend billions more: BOO. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is bound to be a high false positive rate with this system .
Out of millions of people that will be profiled by this system per day , how many actual terrorist are there ?
Perhaps one or two a year ?
Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others ?
I do n't think so .
So really , in their efforts to find a needle in a haystack , many innocent people are going to be harassed .
Also , also with the needle in the haystack issue , I do n't see this system effective in catching all actual terrorists , since they will be doing their best to " blend in " with the crowd and not stick out anyway .
So expect to have high failure rates of both type 1 and type 2 natures .
And so , the billions of dollars to deploy this system is justified how ?
Not to mention all the civil rights issues with the government monitoring your biometrics without your consent or knowledge .
Who knows what will be done with the data , and how it may affect you in the future ?
There are expectations of privacy violations here , which will be fought out in the courts .
Meanwhile , another " terrorist " will go " BOO " , and you 'll see hearings and blame-pointing and everything else at why this high-tech expensive system failed to catch the needle in a very big haystack " terrorist " .
And now I am about to cause the paranoid US to spend billions more : BOO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is bound to be a high false positive rate with this system.
Out of millions of people that will be profiled by this system per day, how many actual terrorist are there?
Perhaps one or two a year?
Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others?
I don't think so.
So really, in their efforts to find a needle in a haystack, many innocent people are going to be harassed.
Also, also with the needle in the haystack issue, I don't see this system effective in catching all actual terrorists, since they will be doing their best to "blend in" with the crowd and not stick out anyway.
So expect to have high failure rates of both type 1 and type 2 natures.
And so, the billions of dollars to deploy this system is justified how?
Not to mention all the civil rights issues with the government monitoring your biometrics without your consent or knowledge.
Who knows what will be done with the data, and how it may affect you in the future?
There are expectations of privacy violations here, which will be fought out in the courts.
Meanwhile, another "terrorist" will go "BOO", and you'll see hearings and blame-pointing and everything else at why this high-tech expensive system failed to catch the needle in a very big haystack "terrorist".
And now I am about to cause the paranoid US to spend billions more: BOO. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822730</id>
	<title>ED-209</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1263931020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a brilliant demonstration of this system in the first 30 minutes of the movie ROBOCOP. As you can see, the terrorist was correctly identified and eliminated as a threat. There were no glitches or errors of any kind and the project was a complete success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a brilliant demonstration of this system in the first 30 minutes of the movie ROBOCOP .
As you can see , the terrorist was correctly identified and eliminated as a threat .
There were no glitches or errors of any kind and the project was a complete success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a brilliant demonstration of this system in the first 30 minutes of the movie ROBOCOP.
As you can see, the terrorist was correctly identified and eliminated as a threat.
There were no glitches or errors of any kind and the project was a complete success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820486</id>
	<title>United States of Patents.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patenting should have been stopped when life was being patented.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patenting should have been stopped when life was being patented.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patenting should have been stopped when life was being patented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30824242</id>
	<title>We need more airport profiling</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263894300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think more airport profiling is a good thing. Remember the utterly broken baggage handling system at the Denver airport? Profiling would have caught this earlier. Or the airport that always seems to have a trick up its sleeve? Again, profiling would have caught this airport before it even was allowed to put down its runways. Sure, airport profiling might result in some racial profiling, like whether it was made by this or that construction company, but this can be managed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think more airport profiling is a good thing .
Remember the utterly broken baggage handling system at the Denver airport ?
Profiling would have caught this earlier .
Or the airport that always seems to have a trick up its sleeve ?
Again , profiling would have caught this airport before it even was allowed to put down its runways .
Sure , airport profiling might result in some racial profiling , like whether it was made by this or that construction company , but this can be managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think more airport profiling is a good thing.
Remember the utterly broken baggage handling system at the Denver airport?
Profiling would have caught this earlier.
Or the airport that always seems to have a trick up its sleeve?
Again, profiling would have caught this airport before it even was allowed to put down its runways.
Sure, airport profiling might result in some racial profiling, like whether it was made by this or that construction company, but this can be managed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820752</id>
	<title>As with many such systems..</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1263923460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am left wondering where they are going to find some bonafide terrorists to calibrate their setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am left wondering where they are going to find some bonafide terrorists to calibrate their setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am left wondering where they are going to find some bonafide terrorists to calibrate their setup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820598</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's completely fine in my book.</p><p>The terrorists can and will do absolutely everything to hurt and destroy the dirty white kuffars, including expending their own lives, and we respond by doing what we do best -- innovating and working hard.  Eventually, even their mindless hatred and disregard for their own lives will be utterly crushed by our economic and technological strength, and like the original Zealots before the Romans 2000 years ago, they'll be but a pathetic historical footnote.</p><p>Even so, this is an application of the old "broken windows" fallacy.  Terrorism isn't good for our economy, even as it fosters innovation (look at Israel's startup culture).  It costs valuable money and resources to defend ourselves against these animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's completely fine in my book.The terrorists can and will do absolutely everything to hurt and destroy the dirty white kuffars , including expending their own lives , and we respond by doing what we do best -- innovating and working hard .
Eventually , even their mindless hatred and disregard for their own lives will be utterly crushed by our economic and technological strength , and like the original Zealots before the Romans 2000 years ago , they 'll be but a pathetic historical footnote.Even so , this is an application of the old " broken windows " fallacy .
Terrorism is n't good for our economy , even as it fosters innovation ( look at Israel 's startup culture ) .
It costs valuable money and resources to defend ourselves against these animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's completely fine in my book.The terrorists can and will do absolutely everything to hurt and destroy the dirty white kuffars, including expending their own lives, and we respond by doing what we do best -- innovating and working hard.
Eventually, even their mindless hatred and disregard for their own lives will be utterly crushed by our economic and technological strength, and like the original Zealots before the Romans 2000 years ago, they'll be but a pathetic historical footnote.Even so, this is an application of the old "broken windows" fallacy.
Terrorism isn't good for our economy, even as it fosters innovation (look at Israel's startup culture).
It costs valuable money and resources to defend ourselves against these animals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823422</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1263933720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements</p></div><p>Prior art - see Voight-Kampff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye MovementsPrior art - see Voight-Kampff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye MovementsPrior art - see Voight-Kampff.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820756</id>
	<title>US got off easy</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still don't jump at every unattended suitcase though one day we will need to.  The day when a car parked in the wrong spot becomes an issue.  No, we got it easy.</p><p>The simple facts are that your more likely to die of natural causes or from a car accident in the US than terrorism.  The terrorist just want you to think otherwise and are more than willing to try.   So of course we need a computer/software to do this surveillance for us because then we can divorce ourselves from the feeling we are picking on people.  Far better to let a computer do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still do n't jump at every unattended suitcase though one day we will need to .
The day when a car parked in the wrong spot becomes an issue .
No , we got it easy.The simple facts are that your more likely to die of natural causes or from a car accident in the US than terrorism .
The terrorist just want you to think otherwise and are more than willing to try .
So of course we need a computer/software to do this surveillance for us because then we can divorce ourselves from the feeling we are picking on people .
Far better to let a computer do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still don't jump at every unattended suitcase though one day we will need to.
The day when a car parked in the wrong spot becomes an issue.
No, we got it easy.The simple facts are that your more likely to die of natural causes or from a car accident in the US than terrorism.
The terrorist just want you to think otherwise and are more than willing to try.
So of course we need a computer/software to do this surveillance for us because then we can divorce ourselves from the feeling we are picking on people.
Far better to let a computer do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30832080</id>
	<title>Re:Profiling</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264003740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags? </i></p><p>So what about a little old lady who has the wrong colour skin - where does she fit into your model?</p><p>Profiling is easy to support, all the while you're not the one being profiled.</p><p>Of course I have no idea about anything about you, as you post anonymously. But consider, I'm from the UK. Supposing the US noted that several previous attempts have been made by people who previously spent time in the UK, and therefore decided to give all UK citizens extra profiling. It doesn't matter how much I and little old ladies protested, and if we'd previously supported the notion of profiling, we'd have no right to complain.</p><p><i>Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?</i></p><p>Well the one thing they all have in common is that they're all human. Therefore, by your own logic, we should be searching everyone. You wouldn't want to risk it, would you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags ?
So what about a little old lady who has the wrong colour skin - where does she fit into your model ? Profiling is easy to support , all the while you 're not the one being profiled.Of course I have no idea about anything about you , as you post anonymously .
But consider , I 'm from the UK .
Supposing the US noted that several previous attempts have been made by people who previously spent time in the UK , and therefore decided to give all UK citizens extra profiling .
It does n't matter how much I and little old ladies protested , and if we 'd previously supported the notion of profiling , we 'd have no right to complain.Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and can not help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable ? Well the one thing they all have in common is that they 're all human .
Therefore , by your own logic , we should be searching everyone .
You would n't want to risk it , would you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags?
So what about a little old lady who has the wrong colour skin - where does she fit into your model?Profiling is easy to support, all the while you're not the one being profiled.Of course I have no idea about anything about you, as you post anonymously.
But consider, I'm from the UK.
Supposing the US noted that several previous attempts have been made by people who previously spent time in the UK, and therefore decided to give all UK citizens extra profiling.
It doesn't matter how much I and little old ladies protested, and if we'd previously supported the notion of profiling, we'd have no right to complain.Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?Well the one thing they all have in common is that they're all human.
Therefore, by your own logic, we should be searching everyone.
You wouldn't want to risk it, would you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821654</id>
	<title>Does it detect Replicants?</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1263927240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I wonder if just the  Voight-Kampff test after being given a set of questions, when cross-referenced could detect terrorists. Domestic or Foreign terrorists have to be so programmed / screwed up to not have many human responses left inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I wonder if just the Voight-Kampff test after being given a set of questions , when cross-referenced could detect terrorists .
Domestic or Foreign terrorists have to be so programmed / screwed up to not have many human responses left inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I wonder if just the  Voight-Kampff test after being given a set of questions, when cross-referenced could detect terrorists.
Domestic or Foreign terrorists have to be so programmed / screwed up to not have many human responses left inside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820296</id>
	<title>Money, Money, Money</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1263921300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must be funny........<br> <br>

1. Latch on to terrorism like a limpet.<br>
2. Patent method relating to supposedly fighting said terrorism.<br>
3. ???<br>
4. Profit!<br> <br>

It sounds like a useless system with a ton of false positives possible whilst the people who should be under suspicion get away. The dodgy people with something to hide learnt how to defeat this kind of system long ago, and it'll be even worse with an automated system with little to new human intervention (bad idea for this sort of thing by the way). You just stay relaxed and look bored.<br> <br>

This terrorism racket isn't bad money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be funny....... . 1. Latch on to terrorism like a limpet .
2. Patent method relating to supposedly fighting said terrorism .
3. ? ? ?
4. Profit !
It sounds like a useless system with a ton of false positives possible whilst the people who should be under suspicion get away .
The dodgy people with something to hide learnt how to defeat this kind of system long ago , and it 'll be even worse with an automated system with little to new human intervention ( bad idea for this sort of thing by the way ) .
You just stay relaxed and look bored .
This terrorism racket is n't bad money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be funny........ 

1. Latch on to terrorism like a limpet.
2. Patent method relating to supposedly fighting said terrorism.
3. ???
4. Profit!
It sounds like a useless system with a ton of false positives possible whilst the people who should be under suspicion get away.
The dodgy people with something to hide learnt how to defeat this kind of system long ago, and it'll be even worse with an automated system with little to new human intervention (bad idea for this sort of thing by the way).
You just stay relaxed and look bored.
This terrorism racket isn't bad money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820660</id>
	<title>Re:Why ?</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1263923160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gosh darnit, you're right! All a terrorist would have to do is groom himself, wear deodorant, take some muscle relaxants, and inject the guy in front of them with a shot of testosterone to avoid all suspicion!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh darnit , you 're right !
All a terrorist would have to do is groom himself , wear deodorant , take some muscle relaxants , and inject the guy in front of them with a shot of testosterone to avoid all suspicion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh darnit, you're right!
All a terrorist would have to do is groom himself, wear deodorant, take some muscle relaxants, and inject the guy in front of them with a shot of testosterone to avoid all suspicion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821630</id>
	<title>Re:Why ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excess false positives is exactly the problem with this type of hare-brained scheme.</p><p>You're not a terrorist, so every time they search you, they're wasting time and money that could better be spent on intelligence analysis (find and arrest 'em before they can blow up anything) and emergency preparedness (helps regardless of whether they get through airport security and blow up a plane, blow up a line of people waiting for security theater screenings, or heck, something unrelated like blowing up a water treatment plant.  It also helps for natural disasters which will never be prevented by "check your rights at the door" airline security theater).</p><p>Also keep in mind that airlines carry over 1.25 *billion* passengers per year.  Of those, perhaps half a dozen may actually be terrorists -- in a terrorism-heavy year.  Even a 99.9\% accuracy rate for detecting airline terrorists gives you over one million innocent passengers treated like dirt for no reason.</p><p>It's just a really bad tradeoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excess false positives is exactly the problem with this type of hare-brained scheme.You 're not a terrorist , so every time they search you , they 're wasting time and money that could better be spent on intelligence analysis ( find and arrest 'em before they can blow up anything ) and emergency preparedness ( helps regardless of whether they get through airport security and blow up a plane , blow up a line of people waiting for security theater screenings , or heck , something unrelated like blowing up a water treatment plant .
It also helps for natural disasters which will never be prevented by " check your rights at the door " airline security theater ) .Also keep in mind that airlines carry over 1.25 * billion * passengers per year .
Of those , perhaps half a dozen may actually be terrorists -- in a terrorism-heavy year .
Even a 99.9 \ % accuracy rate for detecting airline terrorists gives you over one million innocent passengers treated like dirt for no reason.It 's just a really bad tradeoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excess false positives is exactly the problem with this type of hare-brained scheme.You're not a terrorist, so every time they search you, they're wasting time and money that could better be spent on intelligence analysis (find and arrest 'em before they can blow up anything) and emergency preparedness (helps regardless of whether they get through airport security and blow up a plane, blow up a line of people waiting for security theater screenings, or heck, something unrelated like blowing up a water treatment plant.
It also helps for natural disasters which will never be prevented by "check your rights at the door" airline security theater).Also keep in mind that airlines carry over 1.25 *billion* passengers per year.
Of those, perhaps half a dozen may actually be terrorists -- in a terrorism-heavy year.
Even a 99.9\% accuracy rate for detecting airline terrorists gives you over one million innocent passengers treated like dirt for no reason.It's just a really bad tradeoff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820376</id>
	<title>Olfactory?</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1263921660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose eating Chipotle before boarding a flight *could* be considered terrorism...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose eating Chipotle before boarding a flight * could * be considered terrorism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose eating Chipotle before boarding a flight *could* be considered terrorism...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821430</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1263926280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The need for this just appalls me.  Hate it.  It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.</p></div><p>Funny, an analogous statement occurs to me when thinking about our federal elected officials.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The need for this just appalls me .
Hate it .
It 's amazing what a small group of " dedicated " people can do with a few airplanes.Funny , an analogous statement occurs to me when thinking about our federal elected officials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The need for this just appalls me.
Hate it.
It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.Funny, an analogous statement occurs to me when thinking about our federal elected officials.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820142</id>
	<title>I smell a rat</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1263920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The setup uses a collection of sensors -- video, motion, biometric and even olfactory<b> <br>
<br>
"Hey guys! This dude smells like Garry Kasparov!"</b></b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The setup uses a collection of sensors -- video , motion , biometric and even olfactory " Hey guys !
This dude smells like Garry Kasparov !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The setup uses a collection of sensors -- video, motion, biometric and even olfactory 

"Hey guys!
This dude smells like Garry Kasparov!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820656</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263923160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The terrorists won when our cowardly politicians did exectly what the terrorists wanted us to do. Haiti should tell you that nature can do far more damage than any terrorist. Terrorism doesn't make flying more dangerous; despite flying's great safety record, there are far more airliner catastrophes cause by weather, human error, and equipment failure.</p><p>Security theater does nothing to make you safer, and that's all they have at the airports -- theater. There is no need for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The terrorists won when our cowardly politicians did exectly what the terrorists wanted us to do .
Haiti should tell you that nature can do far more damage than any terrorist .
Terrorism does n't make flying more dangerous ; despite flying 's great safety record , there are far more airliner catastrophes cause by weather , human error , and equipment failure.Security theater does nothing to make you safer , and that 's all they have at the airports -- theater .
There is no need for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terrorists won when our cowardly politicians did exectly what the terrorists wanted us to do.
Haiti should tell you that nature can do far more damage than any terrorist.
Terrorism doesn't make flying more dangerous; despite flying's great safety record, there are far more airliner catastrophes cause by weather, human error, and equipment failure.Security theater does nothing to make you safer, and that's all they have at the airports -- theater.
There is no need for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822194</id>
	<title>Re:This is insane.</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1263929340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others? I don't think so.</p></div><p>Well, they're expecting to be introduced to their 72 virgins in a few hours, so I'd expect that you could just look for guys wandering around with a big smile on their face.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others ?
I do n't think so.Well , they 're expecting to be introduced to their 72 virgins in a few hours , so I 'd expect that you could just look for guys wandering around with a big smile on their face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would actual terrorists behave or have other characteristics all that different that would definitively distinguish them from millions of others?
I don't think so.Well, they're expecting to be introduced to their 72 virgins in a few hours, so I'd expect that you could just look for guys wandering around with a big smile on their face.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30846232</id>
	<title>Switzerland doesn't have a terrorist problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264090920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the major countries that have sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan have had terrorist incidences.</p><p>The Founding Fathers warned about a professional military and foreign entanglements.</p><p>Terrorism and constant wars are what the US has gotten for ignoring their advice.</p><p>Neutrality is the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the major countries that have sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan have had terrorist incidences.The Founding Fathers warned about a professional military and foreign entanglements.Terrorism and constant wars are what the US has gotten for ignoring their advice.Neutrality is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the major countries that have sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan have had terrorist incidences.The Founding Fathers warned about a professional military and foreign entanglements.Terrorism and constant wars are what the US has gotten for ignoring their advice.Neutrality is the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042</id>
	<title>Second Post</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS:<blockquote><div><p>Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security, analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, 'Behavioral Deviations by <b>Measuring Eye Movements</b>,'</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Ever vigilant against <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T55ArHjeR1c" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">the dog with the <b>shifty eyes</b>.</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS : Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security , analyzing furtive glances to detect , according to the title of the patent application , 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements, ' Ever vigilant against the dog with the shifty eyes .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS:Two applications go one better than Israeli-style security, analyzing furtive glances to detect, according to the title of the patent application, 'Behavioral Deviations by Measuring Eye Movements,'


Ever vigilant against the dog with the shifty eyes.
[youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820226</id>
	<title>You know what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I'll just drive or take Amtrak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll just drive or take Amtrak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'll just drive or take Amtrak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821046</id>
	<title>Profiling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every last terrorist who has ever tried to hijack a US airplane has one thing in common:  they are Arabs, they are Islamic, and they have brown to light brown skin.  Why do we not give extra scanning etc. to people who fit this description as a matter of policy?  So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags?  Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every last terrorist who has ever tried to hijack a US airplane has one thing in common : they are Arabs , they are Islamic , and they have brown to light brown skin .
Why do we not give extra scanning etc .
to people who fit this description as a matter of policy ?
So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags ?
Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and can not help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every last terrorist who has ever tried to hijack a US airplane has one thing in common:  they are Arabs, they are Islamic, and they have brown to light brown skin.
Why do we not give extra scanning etc.
to people who fit this description as a matter of policy?
So why are we stopping little old ladies and inspecting their bags?
Why is profiling so wrong when we did not choose this enemy and cannot help that they all have so much in common that makes them so identifiable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821564</id>
	<title>IBM is perfect!</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1263926880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM did a great job for Germany in the 1930's and 40's with their control grid. Imagine what they can do for us today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM did a great job for Germany in the 1930 's and 40 's with their control grid .
Imagine what they can do for us today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM did a great job for Germany in the 1930's and 40's with their control grid.
Imagine what they can do for us today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30830654</id>
	<title>Re:Second Post</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1263995100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, they will arrest Aspies, agoraphobics and, well, people that forgot to bring their glasses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not to forget those flying economy class for 14 hours, who will definitely behave in bizarre ways until the blood returns to their feet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they will arrest Aspies , agoraphobics and , well , people that forgot to bring their glasses ... not to forget those flying economy class for 14 hours , who will definitely behave in bizarre ways until the blood returns to their feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they will arrest Aspies, agoraphobics and, well, people that forgot to bring their glasses ... not to forget those flying economy class for 14 hours, who will definitely behave in bizarre ways until the blood returns to their feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30828902</id>
	<title>Eye movements, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict a suit from NLP practitioners "modelling" patent trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict a suit from NLP practitioners " modelling " patent trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict a suit from NLP practitioners "modelling" patent trolls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820574</id>
	<title>Dysfunctional Empire</title>
	<author>rolandansgar</author>
	<datestamp>1263922800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More insanity coming from a mentally degenerate elite. Der Geist der Zeit: Faschismus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More insanity coming from a mentally degenerate elite .
Der Geist der Zeit : Faschismus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More insanity coming from a mentally degenerate elite.
Der Geist der Zeit: Faschismus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820934</id>
	<title>Airport profiling</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1263924180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, when I read "airport profiling" I thought how convenient it would be to be able to avoid all the suspicious airports during my travels.  A profile of airport conditions would be nice to have.
<br> <br>
I mean, seriously, that's what it's coming down to.  How can I minimize the risk of undue and irrational harassment while en route to my destination?  As it is, I try to avoid travel through the United States entirely, and that's a shame, because it's a nice place once you get away from all the people waving guns around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when I read " airport profiling " I thought how convenient it would be to be able to avoid all the suspicious airports during my travels .
A profile of airport conditions would be nice to have .
I mean , seriously , that 's what it 's coming down to .
How can I minimize the risk of undue and irrational harassment while en route to my destination ?
As it is , I try to avoid travel through the United States entirely , and that 's a shame , because it 's a nice place once you get away from all the people waving guns around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when I read "airport profiling" I thought how convenient it would be to be able to avoid all the suspicious airports during my travels.
A profile of airport conditions would be nice to have.
I mean, seriously, that's what it's coming down to.
How can I minimize the risk of undue and irrational harassment while en route to my destination?
As it is, I try to avoid travel through the United States entirely, and that's a shame, because it's a nice place once you get away from all the people waving guns around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820304</id>
	<title>Re:Why ?</title>
	<author>shabtai87</author>
	<datestamp>1263921360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure they won't shoot you on sight if you look around too suddenly. That said, this is one case where the only truly informative test is a full body scan. If the cold war spy revelations have taught us anything, even background checks can fail. In the SNR formulation, this is the exact situation i would rather have excess false positives than a single missed detection...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they wo n't shoot you on sight if you look around too suddenly .
That said , this is one case where the only truly informative test is a full body scan .
If the cold war spy revelations have taught us anything , even background checks can fail .
In the SNR formulation , this is the exact situation i would rather have excess false positives than a single missed detection.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they won't shoot you on sight if you look around too suddenly.
That said, this is one case where the only truly informative test is a full body scan.
If the cold war spy revelations have taught us anything, even background checks can fail.
In the SNR formulation, this is the exact situation i would rather have excess false positives than a single missed detection...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104</id>
	<title>Why ?</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1263920640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You cannot have such stupid mechanisms to detect terrorist activity at airports. At best, you can use them to support other mechanisms. Like as an example maybe to reduce the number of people you want people to go under the scanner. I am sure with patents published online, someone can figure out a way to beat the detection. IMHO, at airports we should use scanners to detect drugs/chemicals/weapons etc. Everything else must come before granting visa like performing a thorough background check !!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have such stupid mechanisms to detect terrorist activity at airports .
At best , you can use them to support other mechanisms .
Like as an example maybe to reduce the number of people you want people to go under the scanner .
I am sure with patents published online , someone can figure out a way to beat the detection .
IMHO , at airports we should use scanners to detect drugs/chemicals/weapons etc .
Everything else must come before granting visa like performing a thorough background check !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot have such stupid mechanisms to detect terrorist activity at airports.
At best, you can use them to support other mechanisms.
Like as an example maybe to reduce the number of people you want people to go under the scanner.
I am sure with patents published online, someone can figure out a way to beat the detection.
IMHO, at airports we should use scanners to detect drugs/chemicals/weapons etc.
Everything else must come before granting visa like performing a thorough background check !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820140</id>
	<title>Israeli-style security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the Israeli "trick" were these long interviews face-to-face by trained humans looking you right in the eye.</p><p>I doubt 2 pieces of software are better than a trained human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the Israeli " trick " were these long interviews face-to-face by trained humans looking you right in the eye.I doubt 2 pieces of software are better than a trained human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the Israeli "trick" were these long interviews face-to-face by trained humans looking you right in the eye.I doubt 2 pieces of software are better than a trained human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820468</id>
	<title>They have experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_and\_the\_Holocaust" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">were working</a> [wikipedia.org] with experts on profiling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were working [ wikipedia.org ] with experts on profiling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were working [wikipedia.org] with experts on profiling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</id>
	<title>This sucks</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1263920460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The need for this just appalls me.  Hate it.  It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.</p><p>I feel horribly for the loss of life, but I can't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.</p><p>Stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The need for this just appalls me .
Hate it .
It 's amazing what a small group of " dedicated " people can do with a few airplanes.I feel horribly for the loss of life , but I ca n't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.Stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The need for this just appalls me.
Hate it.
It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.I feel horribly for the loss of life, but I can't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.Stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821184</id>
	<title>Re:This sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The need for this just appalls me.  Hate it.  It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.</p><p>I feel horribly for the loss of life, but I can't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.</p><p>Stupid.</p></div><p>Osama bin Laden has wet-dreams nightly about the unimaginable success of his plot to use commercial airliners as guided air-to-surface missiles. Hell, I would be laughing too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The need for this just appalls me .
Hate it .
It 's amazing what a small group of " dedicated " people can do with a few airplanes.I feel horribly for the loss of life , but I ca n't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.Stupid.Osama bin Laden has wet-dreams nightly about the unimaginable success of his plot to use commercial airliners as guided air-to-surface missiles .
Hell , I would be laughing too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The need for this just appalls me.
Hate it.
It's amazing what a small group of "dedicated" people can do with a few airplanes.I feel horribly for the loss of life, but I can't imagine those terrorists ever expected it to get this far.Stupid.Osama bin Laden has wet-dreams nightly about the unimaginable success of his plot to use commercial airliners as guided air-to-surface missiles.
Hell, I would be laughing too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820346</id>
	<title>The Hollerith Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is back! New and improved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is back !
New and improved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is back!
New and improved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820396</id>
	<title>This is all marketing hype and the patent would...</title>
	<author>Assmasher</author>
	<datestamp>1263921840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...(if granted) never stand up in court unless something truly novel was listed because this sort of 'data fusion' has been going on in the security industry for the past 10 years.</p><p>There is a very specific reason you will only see this sort of 'product' in testing for the next 10 years - 'false positives.'  That's a very very important phrase in the security industry because software based solutions are supposed to act as force multipliers (although historically they're used to reduce forces in order to lower costs through automation, not to augment it) and if you've a high 'false positive' rate (as ALL of these behavioral analysis systems do) you actually impede normal security operations.  Research in this area of physical security is active and ongoing, but veyr unlikely to produce anything usable except in very specific scenarios (objects left behind, loitering, et cetera.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... ( if granted ) never stand up in court unless something truly novel was listed because this sort of 'data fusion ' has been going on in the security industry for the past 10 years.There is a very specific reason you will only see this sort of 'product ' in testing for the next 10 years - 'false positives .
' That 's a very very important phrase in the security industry because software based solutions are supposed to act as force multipliers ( although historically they 're used to reduce forces in order to lower costs through automation , not to augment it ) and if you 've a high 'false positive ' rate ( as ALL of these behavioral analysis systems do ) you actually impede normal security operations .
Research in this area of physical security is active and ongoing , but veyr unlikely to produce anything usable except in very specific scenarios ( objects left behind , loitering , et cetera .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...(if granted) never stand up in court unless something truly novel was listed because this sort of 'data fusion' has been going on in the security industry for the past 10 years.There is a very specific reason you will only see this sort of 'product' in testing for the next 10 years - 'false positives.
'  That's a very very important phrase in the security industry because software based solutions are supposed to act as force multipliers (although historically they're used to reduce forces in order to lower costs through automation, not to augment it) and if you've a high 'false positive' rate (as ALL of these behavioral analysis systems do) you actually impede normal security operations.
Research in this area of physical security is active and ongoing, but veyr unlikely to produce anything usable except in very specific scenarios (objects left behind, loitering, et cetera.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822112</id>
	<title>Feedback loops and seeding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things I find funniest about this concept is its potential for feedback loops.  Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and assume that the system actually works as promised -- automatically flagging anyone who's acting nervous or furtive for the security teams.  Among the other false (ie, non-terrorist) positives, you'll have people who are afraid of flying, minorities, anybody who's already on the no-fly list, anyone smart enough not to trust computerized profiling systems, and anyone who's been screwed over by the system before.  This last group is key -- after the first time they get tackled to the floor, held at gunpoint, stripped, and interrogated for no particular reason, most people will tend to be a bit cautious about going back to the airport again.  Of course, since the system is designed to flag people acting a bit paranoid, this suggests that anyone who's flagged as a false positive once will be \_far\_ more likely to be flagged as a false positive a second time.  This will make the victim even more nervous about going to the airport (not to mention any of their friends or family who just saw their loved one escorted off at gunpoint), and the cycle can continue indefinitely.</p><p>The other thing I find curious about these proposed patents is that it's not clear how they're going to initially seed the system.  In theory, this system could potentially flag actual terrorists based on non-obvious combinations of behaviors and actions.  But in order for this to work, they'll have to have a large enough data set of terrorists in order to train the system with actual data.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), terrorists are a statistically insignificant portion of the people who use airports every day -- and they'll have to monitor quite a few actual terrorists with this system before they can establish real data points for 'suspicious behavior'.  So what are they planning to use for the initial profiling criteria?  Skin color (notably \_not\_ mentioned in TFA)?  Wearing a turban?  Holding a cocker spaniel and a crying baby?  Such a system \_might\_ eventually be trainable, after they've monitored several hundred terrorists (and flagged millions of false positives), but until then, even a perfectly designed system simply wouldn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I find funniest about this concept is its potential for feedback loops .
Suspend your disbelief for a moment , and assume that the system actually works as promised -- automatically flagging anyone who 's acting nervous or furtive for the security teams .
Among the other false ( ie , non-terrorist ) positives , you 'll have people who are afraid of flying , minorities , anybody who 's already on the no-fly list , anyone smart enough not to trust computerized profiling systems , and anyone who 's been screwed over by the system before .
This last group is key -- after the first time they get tackled to the floor , held at gunpoint , stripped , and interrogated for no particular reason , most people will tend to be a bit cautious about going back to the airport again .
Of course , since the system is designed to flag people acting a bit paranoid , this suggests that anyone who 's flagged as a false positive once will be \ _far \ _ more likely to be flagged as a false positive a second time .
This will make the victim even more nervous about going to the airport ( not to mention any of their friends or family who just saw their loved one escorted off at gunpoint ) , and the cycle can continue indefinitely.The other thing I find curious about these proposed patents is that it 's not clear how they 're going to initially seed the system .
In theory , this system could potentially flag actual terrorists based on non-obvious combinations of behaviors and actions .
But in order for this to work , they 'll have to have a large enough data set of terrorists in order to train the system with actual data .
Unfortunately ( or fortunately , depending on your point of view ) , terrorists are a statistically insignificant portion of the people who use airports every day -- and they 'll have to monitor quite a few actual terrorists with this system before they can establish real data points for 'suspicious behavior' .
So what are they planning to use for the initial profiling criteria ?
Skin color ( notably \ _not \ _ mentioned in TFA ) ?
Wearing a turban ?
Holding a cocker spaniel and a crying baby ?
Such a system \ _might \ _ eventually be trainable , after they 've monitored several hundred terrorists ( and flagged millions of false positives ) , but until then , even a perfectly designed system simply would n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I find funniest about this concept is its potential for feedback loops.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and assume that the system actually works as promised -- automatically flagging anyone who's acting nervous or furtive for the security teams.
Among the other false (ie, non-terrorist) positives, you'll have people who are afraid of flying, minorities, anybody who's already on the no-fly list, anyone smart enough not to trust computerized profiling systems, and anyone who's been screwed over by the system before.
This last group is key -- after the first time they get tackled to the floor, held at gunpoint, stripped, and interrogated for no particular reason, most people will tend to be a bit cautious about going back to the airport again.
Of course, since the system is designed to flag people acting a bit paranoid, this suggests that anyone who's flagged as a false positive once will be \_far\_ more likely to be flagged as a false positive a second time.
This will make the victim even more nervous about going to the airport (not to mention any of their friends or family who just saw their loved one escorted off at gunpoint), and the cycle can continue indefinitely.The other thing I find curious about these proposed patents is that it's not clear how they're going to initially seed the system.
In theory, this system could potentially flag actual terrorists based on non-obvious combinations of behaviors and actions.
But in order for this to work, they'll have to have a large enough data set of terrorists in order to train the system with actual data.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), terrorists are a statistically insignificant portion of the people who use airports every day -- and they'll have to monitor quite a few actual terrorists with this system before they can establish real data points for 'suspicious behavior'.
So what are they planning to use for the initial profiling criteria?
Skin color (notably \_not\_ mentioned in TFA)?
Wearing a turban?
Holding a cocker spaniel and a crying baby?
Such a system \_might\_ eventually be trainable, after they've monitored several hundred terrorists (and flagged millions of false positives), but until then, even a perfectly designed system simply wouldn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820400</id>
	<title>Easier way to profile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an easier way to secure the air:</p><p><tt><br>if (isMuslim) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; takeOutBackAndShootInHead();<br>}<br></tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an easier way to secure the air : if ( isMuslim ) {         takeOutBackAndShootInHead ( ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an easier way to secure the air:if (isMuslim) {
        takeOutBackAndShootInHead();}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820004</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30825342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30830654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30846232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30832080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30834296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1513245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30832080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30822194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30830654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30823946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30825342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30834296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30846232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30821564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1513245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1513245.30820698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
