<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1551217</id>
	<title>Brain Drain, Admin Failures Threaten the FCC's Role</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264005780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"The Federal Communications Commission has brain drain and <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/56190">administration problems that could decrease its effectiveness</a> at a time when advanced service technologies such as wireless and broadband present significant regulatory challenges.  On the brain drain front, <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1079.pdf">a report out today</a> (PDF) from watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office stated that from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%. Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%.  While the total number of engineers and economists in the workforce has decreased from 2003 to 2008, the percentages remained the same. The GAO also criticized the FCC's public comment policy, saying, 'While FCC relies heavily on public input to inform its decisions, it tends to do so without giving the public access to the actual text of a given proposal. If parties are able to submit vague summaries that may not fully reflect meetings between FCC officials and outside parties, then stakeholders will continue to question whether commission decisions are being influenced by information that was not subject to public comment or rebuttal and that, in some cases, is submitted just before a commission vote.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " The Federal Communications Commission has brain drain and administration problems that could decrease its effectiveness at a time when advanced service technologies such as wireless and broadband present significant regulatory challenges .
On the brain drain front , a report out today ( PDF ) from watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office stated that from fiscal year 2003 to 2008 , the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10 \ % .
Similarly , the overall number of economists decreased by 14 \ % .
While the total number of engineers and economists in the workforce has decreased from 2003 to 2008 , the percentages remained the same .
The GAO also criticized the FCC 's public comment policy , saying , 'While FCC relies heavily on public input to inform its decisions , it tends to do so without giving the public access to the actual text of a given proposal .
If parties are able to submit vague summaries that may not fully reflect meetings between FCC officials and outside parties , then stakeholders will continue to question whether commission decisions are being influenced by information that was not subject to public comment or rebuttal and that , in some cases , is submitted just before a commission vote .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "The Federal Communications Commission has brain drain and administration problems that could decrease its effectiveness at a time when advanced service technologies such as wireless and broadband present significant regulatory challenges.
On the brain drain front, a report out today (PDF) from watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office stated that from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%.
Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%.
While the total number of engineers and economists in the workforce has decreased from 2003 to 2008, the percentages remained the same.
The GAO also criticized the FCC's public comment policy, saying, 'While FCC relies heavily on public input to inform its decisions, it tends to do so without giving the public access to the actual text of a given proposal.
If parties are able to submit vague summaries that may not fully reflect meetings between FCC officials and outside parties, then stakeholders will continue to question whether commission decisions are being influenced by information that was not subject to public comment or rebuttal and that, in some cases, is submitted just before a commission vote.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833652</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate teh FCC,</p><p>Yeah you know ME!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate teh FCC,Yeah you know ME !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate teh FCC,Yeah you know ME!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835774</id>
	<title>Re:More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1264017660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead?</p></div><p>That is what a government is for - in democracies, to provide a system of organization whereby people, equally represented by a vote each, get together to decide what to do with their resources. It's based on the idea that humans have certain inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed upon by the rich and powerful. (I know, stupid idea - I don't know who came up with it.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.</p></div><p>You'll have to clarify yourself. Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple? Are you joking?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>News flash: corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.</p></div><p>Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover, buy your parent company out and fire you, sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year, bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that's just to a fellow citizen. God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.</p></div><p>On this we can definitely agree.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.</p></div><p>I think you'll find in most democracies that principles are very important. They are not perfect institutions, for sure, but you cannot live your entire life on the slippery slopes of political cowardice. Fascism is little better than Totalitarian Communism which is more or less as terrible and backwards as Monarchy and Theocracy. The only antidote to all of these provably broken systems of government is a secular, constitutional (as in law abiding) democracy that sensibly polices it's citizens and it's markets for the sociopaths and gold crazed sociopaths that will always blight the human landscape.</p><p>And a final point - you state that people can't be good consumers. I believe that they can, but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations. There has to be an entity, outside the direct control of corporations, that is itself policed by the press, which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest. Throughout many parts of the world, consumers make the choice every day to buy food that doesn't harm the environment, products that don't exploit their producers, and lifestyle choices that make our modern world more sustainable. Informed choice is actually a prerequisite for a healthy market. However, when corporations break regulations on the press, turn them into an entertainment network, and then proceed to dismantle reality in order to perpetuate their own goals, real problems can and do and have developed. The cowardly answer is to abandon the whole process.</p><p>Personally, I'm not convinced America can recover without a cycle of real consequences for these choices. However, these choices still remain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead ? That is what a government is for - in democracies , to provide a system of organization whereby people , equally represented by a vote each , get together to decide what to do with their resources .
It 's based on the idea that humans have certain inalienable rights that can not be trespassed upon by the rich and powerful .
( I know , stupid idea - I do n't know who came up with it .
) I guess love of government , love of the people that can slap you in jail ( while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more ) on their whim after " justice theater " in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.You 'll have to clarify yourself .
Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple ?
Are you joking ? News flash : corporations ca n't do much to you if you do n't do business with them.Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover , buy your parent company out and fire you , sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year , bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that 's just to a fellow citizen .
God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.On this we can definitely agree.But people do n't care about principle , and the fact that they ca n't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.I think you 'll find in most democracies that principles are very important .
They are not perfect institutions , for sure , but you can not live your entire life on the slippery slopes of political cowardice .
Fascism is little better than Totalitarian Communism which is more or less as terrible and backwards as Monarchy and Theocracy .
The only antidote to all of these provably broken systems of government is a secular , constitutional ( as in law abiding ) democracy that sensibly polices it 's citizens and it 's markets for the sociopaths and gold crazed sociopaths that will always blight the human landscape.And a final point - you state that people ca n't be good consumers .
I believe that they can , but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations .
There has to be an entity , outside the direct control of corporations , that is itself policed by the press , which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest .
Throughout many parts of the world , consumers make the choice every day to buy food that does n't harm the environment , products that do n't exploit their producers , and lifestyle choices that make our modern world more sustainable .
Informed choice is actually a prerequisite for a healthy market .
However , when corporations break regulations on the press , turn them into an entertainment network , and then proceed to dismantle reality in order to perpetuate their own goals , real problems can and do and have developed .
The cowardly answer is to abandon the whole process.Personally , I 'm not convinced America can recover without a cycle of real consequences for these choices .
However , these choices still remain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead?That is what a government is for - in democracies, to provide a system of organization whereby people, equally represented by a vote each, get together to decide what to do with their resources.
It's based on the idea that humans have certain inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed upon by the rich and powerful.
(I know, stupid idea - I don't know who came up with it.
)I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.You'll have to clarify yourself.
Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?
Are you joking?News flash: corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover, buy your parent company out and fire you, sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year, bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that's just to a fellow citizen.
God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.On this we can definitely agree.But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.I think you'll find in most democracies that principles are very important.
They are not perfect institutions, for sure, but you cannot live your entire life on the slippery slopes of political cowardice.
Fascism is little better than Totalitarian Communism which is more or less as terrible and backwards as Monarchy and Theocracy.
The only antidote to all of these provably broken systems of government is a secular, constitutional (as in law abiding) democracy that sensibly polices it's citizens and it's markets for the sociopaths and gold crazed sociopaths that will always blight the human landscape.And a final point - you state that people can't be good consumers.
I believe that they can, but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations.
There has to be an entity, outside the direct control of corporations, that is itself policed by the press, which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest.
Throughout many parts of the world, consumers make the choice every day to buy food that doesn't harm the environment, products that don't exploit their producers, and lifestyle choices that make our modern world more sustainable.
Informed choice is actually a prerequisite for a healthy market.
However, when corporations break regulations on the press, turn them into an entertainment network, and then proceed to dismantle reality in order to perpetuate their own goals, real problems can and do and have developed.
The cowardly answer is to abandon the whole process.Personally, I'm not convinced America can recover without a cycle of real consequences for these choices.
However, these choices still remain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30840680</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bare market?  I don't think they allow that in this country.  You're generally required to wear shoes and shirts. I suppose you could go bottomless though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bare market ?
I do n't think they allow that in this country .
You 're generally required to wear shoes and shirts .
I suppose you could go bottomless though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bare market?
I don't think they allow that in this country.
You're generally required to wear shoes and shirts.
I suppose you could go bottomless though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834200</id>
	<title>Brain drain at the FCC</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1264011540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was someone at the FCC that had brains?  You would never have known it.  ugh, forget it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was someone at the FCC that had brains ?
You would never have known it .
ugh , forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was someone at the FCC that had brains?
You would never have known it.
ugh, forget it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30837894</id>
	<title>FCC is like the Fed... end it now!</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1263983280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC is unconstitutional -- the legislature gave wide-ranging power to an unelected bureaucracy, which it is not authorized to do (not that the US Constitution matters a damn nowadays)</p><p>The FCC does nothing to protect my life, liberty, or property. In 99\% of the USA, there is so much wide-open bandwidth, there will <b>never</b> be a serious problem with conflicting signals in the electromagnetic spectrum.</p><p>If it were not a Federal crime, I'd probably throw up an antenna and broadcast community radio in my town. But for the tens of thousands of dollars in license applications and hours of paperwork, it's not worth my while. Sure, there's <a href="http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?board=84.0" title="freetalklive.com">Part-15</a> [freetalklive.com] radio, so weak you're lucky if you can hear it 3 blocks down the street -- not worth it either.</p><p>Government does what it does best -- squashing the little guy, protecting the larger moneyed interests, all in the name of keeping us safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is unconstitutional -- the legislature gave wide-ranging power to an unelected bureaucracy , which it is not authorized to do ( not that the US Constitution matters a damn nowadays ) The FCC does nothing to protect my life , liberty , or property .
In 99 \ % of the USA , there is so much wide-open bandwidth , there will never be a serious problem with conflicting signals in the electromagnetic spectrum.If it were not a Federal crime , I 'd probably throw up an antenna and broadcast community radio in my town .
But for the tens of thousands of dollars in license applications and hours of paperwork , it 's not worth my while .
Sure , there 's Part-15 [ freetalklive.com ] radio , so weak you 're lucky if you can hear it 3 blocks down the street -- not worth it either.Government does what it does best -- squashing the little guy , protecting the larger moneyed interests , all in the name of keeping us safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is unconstitutional -- the legislature gave wide-ranging power to an unelected bureaucracy, which it is not authorized to do (not that the US Constitution matters a damn nowadays)The FCC does nothing to protect my life, liberty, or property.
In 99\% of the USA, there is so much wide-open bandwidth, there will never be a serious problem with conflicting signals in the electromagnetic spectrum.If it were not a Federal crime, I'd probably throw up an antenna and broadcast community radio in my town.
But for the tens of thousands of dollars in license applications and hours of paperwork, it's not worth my while.
Sure, there's Part-15 [freetalklive.com] radio, so weak you're lucky if you can hear it 3 blocks down the street -- not worth it either.Government does what it does best -- squashing the little guy, protecting the larger moneyed interests, all in the name of keeping us safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835094</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1264015260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe FCC is obligated to act on complaints - they have to investigate investigate complaints. Whether they take action depends on the circumstances. For example penalizing the network for the wardrobe malfunction was a choice FCC made internally based on an investigation into the facts and their established rules. The investigation was sparked by the complaints. Maybe a pedantic distinction, but there you are..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe FCC is obligated to act on complaints - they have to investigate investigate complaints .
Whether they take action depends on the circumstances .
For example penalizing the network for the wardrobe malfunction was a choice FCC made internally based on an investigation into the facts and their established rules .
The investigation was sparked by the complaints .
Maybe a pedantic distinction , but there you are. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe FCC is obligated to act on complaints - they have to investigate investigate complaints.
Whether they take action depends on the circumstances.
For example penalizing the network for the wardrobe malfunction was a choice FCC made internally based on an investigation into the facts and their established rules.
The investigation was sparked by the complaints.
Maybe a pedantic distinction, but there you are..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844</id>
	<title>Impossible!</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264010160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To have brain drain, one must actually have quality brain to drain.</p><p>Case in point: Kevin Martin.  For a while I \_really\_ wanted to get on live TV just to say, "Fuck Kevin Martin of the FCC.  Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick, and then pull it out and beat him over the head with it."  Definitely not 'fleeting' profanity, and I'm sure Carlin would approve.</p><p>Family Guy's 'PTV' episode (S04E14) had a great musical bit about 'The Freakin' FCC'</p><p>Unfortunately neither the whole ep, or the clip are on Hulu.  However, there's an nzb on a.b.tv , for those familiar with the thing of which we shall not speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To have brain drain , one must actually have quality brain to drain.Case in point : Kevin Martin .
For a while I \ _really \ _ wanted to get on live TV just to say , " Fuck Kevin Martin of the FCC .
Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick , and then pull it out and beat him over the head with it .
" Definitely not 'fleeting ' profanity , and I 'm sure Carlin would approve.Family Guy 's 'PTV ' episode ( S04E14 ) had a great musical bit about 'The Freakin ' FCC'Unfortunately neither the whole ep , or the clip are on Hulu .
However , there 's an nzb on a.b.tv , for those familiar with the thing of which we shall not speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To have brain drain, one must actually have quality brain to drain.Case in point: Kevin Martin.
For a while I \_really\_ wanted to get on live TV just to say, "Fuck Kevin Martin of the FCC.
Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick, and then pull it out and beat him over the head with it.
"  Definitely not 'fleeting' profanity, and I'm sure Carlin would approve.Family Guy's 'PTV' episode (S04E14) had a great musical bit about 'The Freakin' FCC'Unfortunately neither the whole ep, or the clip are on Hulu.
However, there's an nzb on a.b.tv , for those familiar with the thing of which we shall not speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834902</id>
	<title>Split it</title>
	<author>LarrySDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1264014540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Split "censoring airwaves" and "managing frequency blocks". I know they sound similar, but when it was mostly about managing what went where in the spectrum, there was cred (sometimes grudging) from those transmitting. There was some hate, but kind of like hot rodders v highway cops. Censorship of what has already been let onto a frequency or spectrum gets no real respect - you have to pay for talent in full dollars with a little extra for the anti-cred you get for being involved in it. Split them into two parts (and then feel free to take the second out back and shoot it, but that's a pipe dream) and the people doing actual sorting of spectrum can perhaps get some talent that wouldn't touch F*CC with a ten foot pole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Split " censoring airwaves " and " managing frequency blocks " .
I know they sound similar , but when it was mostly about managing what went where in the spectrum , there was cred ( sometimes grudging ) from those transmitting .
There was some hate , but kind of like hot rodders v highway cops .
Censorship of what has already been let onto a frequency or spectrum gets no real respect - you have to pay for talent in full dollars with a little extra for the anti-cred you get for being involved in it .
Split them into two parts ( and then feel free to take the second out back and shoot it , but that 's a pipe dream ) and the people doing actual sorting of spectrum can perhaps get some talent that would n't touch F * CC with a ten foot pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Split "censoring airwaves" and "managing frequency blocks".
I know they sound similar, but when it was mostly about managing what went where in the spectrum, there was cred (sometimes grudging) from those transmitting.
There was some hate, but kind of like hot rodders v highway cops.
Censorship of what has already been let onto a frequency or spectrum gets no real respect - you have to pay for talent in full dollars with a little extra for the anti-cred you get for being involved in it.
Split them into two parts (and then feel free to take the second out back and shoot it, but that's a pipe dream) and the people doing actual sorting of spectrum can perhaps get some talent that wouldn't touch F*CC with a ten foot pole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836980</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263979560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."</p></div><p>The trouble is, that's what they are worth; and I say this as an engineer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA , there 's a simple , easy answer .
PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY 'RE WORTH , not " What the wage-arbitraged market will bear .
" The trouble is , that 's what they are worth ; and I say this as an engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer.
PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear.
"The trouble is, that's what they are worth; and I say this as an engineer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835576</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Throwing the complaints in the garbage where they belong is acting on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Throwing the complaints in the garbage where they belong is acting on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throwing the complaints in the garbage where they belong is acting on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834938</id>
	<title>Effectiveness?</title>
	<author>CBob</author>
	<datestamp>1264014720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC has effectiveness? (not joking)</p><p>They're more like one of the examples of "lack of".</p><p>The timelines they use for decisions &amp; the resources they use are &amp; have been for years generally the models of "How Not To Do Things".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC has effectiveness ?
( not joking ) They 're more like one of the examples of " lack of " .The timelines they use for decisions &amp; the resources they use are &amp; have been for years generally the models of " How Not To Do Things " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC has effectiveness?
(not joking)They're more like one of the examples of "lack of".The timelines they use for decisions &amp; the resources they use are &amp; have been for years generally the models of "How Not To Do Things".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834386</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING?</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1264012200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the rest of society is not paid a wage-arbitrated market value<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P<br>A large part of the economy is the public sector which just negotiates its pay with government and is not market based.<br>Doctors and lawyers limit their market supply and increase their demand via regulations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>As such an engineer faces a severe imbalance in the West.  They are talented enough to enter one of these jobs with an inflated pay scale not tied to the market.  That is where they are going.</p><p>If we were all paid a market arbitrated wage, then there would be no problem.  The market would in fact sort out these kinds of issues.  Globally, I am probably worth $15 dollars an hour as an engineer.  Globally, a teacher is probably worth $8 dollars an hour...  There is a reason most western countries have severe structural deficits.</p><p>That portion of their society receiving non market arbitraged wages is grown too large relative to the market wages... and have not been corrected.<br>As Detroit's economy collapsed and high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs were lost... should that not have translated to lower wages for the public sector, doctors, lawyers... in that region?</p><p>We need to pick one system and stick to it as much as possible.<br>Either we let freedom reign and let people pay others what they think they are worth (market system).<br>Or we have some abstract pay scale where people negotiate their wages with the government.</p><p>Either way, it has to apply to most of society equally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the rest of society is not paid a wage-arbitrated market value : PA large part of the economy is the public sector which just negotiates its pay with government and is not market based.Doctors and lawyers limit their market supply and increase their demand via regulations ...As such an engineer faces a severe imbalance in the West .
They are talented enough to enter one of these jobs with an inflated pay scale not tied to the market .
That is where they are going.If we were all paid a market arbitrated wage , then there would be no problem .
The market would in fact sort out these kinds of issues .
Globally , I am probably worth $ 15 dollars an hour as an engineer .
Globally , a teacher is probably worth $ 8 dollars an hour... There is a reason most western countries have severe structural deficits.That portion of their society receiving non market arbitraged wages is grown too large relative to the market wages... and have not been corrected.As Detroit 's economy collapsed and high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs were lost... should that not have translated to lower wages for the public sector , doctors , lawyers... in that region ? We need to pick one system and stick to it as much as possible.Either we let freedom reign and let people pay others what they think they are worth ( market system ) .Or we have some abstract pay scale where people negotiate their wages with the government.Either way , it has to apply to most of society equally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the rest of society is not paid a wage-arbitrated market value :PA large part of the economy is the public sector which just negotiates its pay with government and is not market based.Doctors and lawyers limit their market supply and increase their demand via regulations ...As such an engineer faces a severe imbalance in the West.
They are talented enough to enter one of these jobs with an inflated pay scale not tied to the market.
That is where they are going.If we were all paid a market arbitrated wage, then there would be no problem.
The market would in fact sort out these kinds of issues.
Globally, I am probably worth $15 dollars an hour as an engineer.
Globally, a teacher is probably worth $8 dollars an hour...  There is a reason most western countries have severe structural deficits.That portion of their society receiving non market arbitraged wages is grown too large relative to the market wages... and have not been corrected.As Detroit's economy collapsed and high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs were lost... should that not have translated to lower wages for the public sector, doctors, lawyers... in that region?We need to pick one system and stick to it as much as possible.Either we let freedom reign and let people pay others what they think they are worth (market system).Or we have some abstract pay scale where people negotiate their wages with the government.Either way, it has to apply to most of society equally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834728</id>
	<title>PRIVATIZE IT.</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1264013760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC .
The Corporations will give America all the sex , drugs , and American Idol they want .
FCC ? Friggin ' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC.
The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want.
FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30837070</id>
	<title>Re:PRIVATIZE IT.</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263979860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.</p></div><p>Actually, most of the Catholic's I've met have no problem with nudity, alcohol or people enjoying themselves.  The Baptists, however, seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone, somewhere, is having fun and that might lead to dancing...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC .
The Corporations will give America all the sex , drugs , and American Idol they want .
FCC ? Friggin ' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.Actually , most of the Catholic 's I 've met have no problem with nudity , alcohol or people enjoying themselves .
The Baptists , however , seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone , somewhere , is having fun and that might lead to dancing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC.
The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want.
FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.Actually, most of the Catholic's I've met have no problem with nudity, alcohol or people enjoying themselves.
The Baptists, however, seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone, somewhere, is having fun and that might lead to dancing...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834086</id>
	<title>Re:Wait</title>
	<author>moogied</author>
	<datestamp>1264011180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the frequencys are a limited resource.  As such, it drives a very delicate market.  Same as "diamonds".
<p>
Diamonds in quotes because that market is artifically limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the frequencys are a limited resource .
As such , it drives a very delicate market .
Same as " diamonds " .
Diamonds in quotes because that market is artifically limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the frequencys are a limited resource.
As such, it drives a very delicate market.
Same as "diamonds".
Diamonds in quotes because that market is artifically limited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833708</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well at least we have equality...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well at least we have equality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well at least we have equality...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833888</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FCC is almost unnecessary anyway.<br>This de-staffing of people that actually know stuff means it's just a bunch of whiny lawyers and accountants and make work bureaucrats anyway.<br>It's time to de-regulate.   This is not China.  FCC is prime territory for downsizing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FCC is almost unnecessary anyway.This de-staffing of people that actually know stuff means it 's just a bunch of whiny lawyers and accountants and make work bureaucrats anyway.It 's time to de-regulate .
This is not China .
FCC is prime territory for downsizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FCC is almost unnecessary anyway.This de-staffing of people that actually know stuff means it's just a bunch of whiny lawyers and accountants and make work bureaucrats anyway.It's time to de-regulate.
This is not China.
FCC is prime territory for downsizing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834502</id>
	<title>Take a number, FCC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From late 2007 on, the federal government has been "quietly" laying off contractors left and right. It just so happens that most federal engineers are contractors...</p><p>Bitch all you want about the state of things, but the fact is that it's cheaper for the federal government to outsource this work. Contractors can be fired without mercy and don't require a pension (more pay up front in exchange for no pension is a deal for the tax payers, especially as life spans climb.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From late 2007 on , the federal government has been " quietly " laying off contractors left and right .
It just so happens that most federal engineers are contractors...Bitch all you want about the state of things , but the fact is that it 's cheaper for the federal government to outsource this work .
Contractors can be fired without mercy and do n't require a pension ( more pay up front in exchange for no pension is a deal for the tax payers , especially as life spans climb .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From late 2007 on, the federal government has been "quietly" laying off contractors left and right.
It just so happens that most federal engineers are contractors...Bitch all you want about the state of things, but the fact is that it's cheaper for the federal government to outsource this work.
Contractors can be fired without mercy and don't require a pension (more pay up front in exchange for no pension is a deal for the tax payers, especially as life spans climb.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834104</id>
	<title>Where to begin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So who do we blame for this?</p><p>An education system that discourages math and science?<br>The uncertainty from the Judicial Branch, and Congress, to effectively outline the role of a regulatory body, and its involvement in the rapidly advancing technology age?<br>A corporate environment that lobbies to unheard of levels of government manipulation?<br>The public for being complacent with what they have?</p><p>Sadly, the points here, FTA, and in the report, merely scratch the surface of the larger problem at hand within the U.S.</p><p>Politics, lobbying, and keeping your head above water, have made this country ripe for corruption, uncertainty, and complacency. It's hard to progress as nation, when corporate interests determine your path of progress on the taxpayers dime, while the elected officials stab each other in the back for more floor time.</p><p>Solutions? Sure. How about end all lobbying in Washington. That might change things a little. I'd recommend violence, but media manipulation squashes any effectiveness that might have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So who do we blame for this ? An education system that discourages math and science ? The uncertainty from the Judicial Branch , and Congress , to effectively outline the role of a regulatory body , and its involvement in the rapidly advancing technology age ? A corporate environment that lobbies to unheard of levels of government manipulation ? The public for being complacent with what they have ? Sadly , the points here , FTA , and in the report , merely scratch the surface of the larger problem at hand within the U.S.Politics , lobbying , and keeping your head above water , have made this country ripe for corruption , uncertainty , and complacency .
It 's hard to progress as nation , when corporate interests determine your path of progress on the taxpayers dime , while the elected officials stab each other in the back for more floor time.Solutions ?
Sure. How about end all lobbying in Washington .
That might change things a little .
I 'd recommend violence , but media manipulation squashes any effectiveness that might have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who do we blame for this?An education system that discourages math and science?The uncertainty from the Judicial Branch, and Congress, to effectively outline the role of a regulatory body, and its involvement in the rapidly advancing technology age?A corporate environment that lobbies to unheard of levels of government manipulation?The public for being complacent with what they have?Sadly, the points here, FTA, and in the report, merely scratch the surface of the larger problem at hand within the U.S.Politics, lobbying, and keeping your head above water, have made this country ripe for corruption, uncertainty, and complacency.
It's hard to progress as nation, when corporate interests determine your path of progress on the taxpayers dime, while the elected officials stab each other in the back for more floor time.Solutions?
Sure. How about end all lobbying in Washington.
That might change things a little.
I'd recommend violence, but media manipulation squashes any effectiveness that might have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132</id>
	<title>Wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%."</p><p>Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING, would it?</p><p>Some idiot with a microphone will soon start blaming the education system. It's NOT the education system. It's the MONEY system. No rational, self-interested human is going to spend a lot of time and money to enter a field where they get to compete with people making $12 per hour. If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...from fiscal year 2003 to 2008 , the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10 \ % .
" Gee , that would n't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING , would it ? Some idiot with a microphone will soon start blaming the education system .
It 's NOT the education system .
It 's the MONEY system .
No rational , self-interested human is going to spend a lot of time and money to enter a field where they get to compete with people making $ 12 per hour .
If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA , there 's a simple , easy answer .
PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY 'RE WORTH , not " What the wage-arbitraged market will bear .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%.
"Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING, would it?Some idiot with a microphone will soon start blaming the education system.
It's NOT the education system.
It's the MONEY system.
No rational, self-interested human is going to spend a lot of time and money to enter a field where they get to compete with people making $12 per hour.
If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer.
PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?</p><p>I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..</p><p>(FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same FCC that took a " save the children " stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back ? I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism.. ( FCC , free advice , stick to regulating wavelengths and you 'll get more support from scientists and engineers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..(FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833886</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1264010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%. Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%</p></div><p>Sounds like we're well on our way towards the national goal of "career choices" limited to creating web sites or making something Oprah likes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10 \ % .
Similarly , the overall number of economists decreased by 14 \ % Sounds like we 're well on our way towards the national goal of " career choices " limited to creating web sites or making something Oprah likes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10\%.
Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%Sounds like we're well on our way towards the national goal of "career choices" limited to creating web sites or making something Oprah likes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768</id>
	<title>Re:More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?</p></div></blockquote><p>Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead?  Neither options are good, but corporate action only exists if consumers exist or government funnels money to them.  I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.</p><p>News flash:  corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.  Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.  But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.  I guess people just operate under the myth that if we just work hard enough, we can create a perfect government, which is nonsense since the corruption of most western governments is an emergent property of the overall democratic structures in the first place, and believing in a perfect government when people can't be good consumers on a collective level is pretty silly...</p><p>A yoke is a yoke no matter whether you label it "democratic" or not.</p><p>So, you're screwed either way.  Just stop holding allegiance to government (and, of course, corporations).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point do Americans call 'enough !
' on corporate hegemony ? Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead ?
Neither options are good , but corporate action only exists if consumers exist or government funnels money to them .
I guess love of government , love of the people that can slap you in jail ( while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more ) on their whim after " justice theater " in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.News flash : corporations ca n't do much to you if you do n't do business with them .
Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle .
But people do n't care about principle , and the fact that they ca n't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable .
I guess people just operate under the myth that if we just work hard enough , we can create a perfect government , which is nonsense since the corruption of most western governments is an emergent property of the overall democratic structures in the first place , and believing in a perfect government when people ca n't be good consumers on a collective level is pretty silly...A yoke is a yoke no matter whether you label it " democratic " or not.So , you 're screwed either way .
Just stop holding allegiance to government ( and , of course , corporations ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point do Americans call 'enough!
' on corporate hegemony?Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead?
Neither options are good, but corporate action only exists if consumers exist or government funnels money to them.
I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.News flash:  corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.
Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.
But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.
I guess people just operate under the myth that if we just work hard enough, we can create a perfect government, which is nonsense since the corruption of most western governments is an emergent property of the overall democratic structures in the first place, and believing in a perfect government when people can't be good consumers on a collective level is pretty silly...A yoke is a yoke no matter whether you label it "democratic" or not.So, you're screwed either way.
Just stop holding allegiance to government (and, of course, corporations).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834804</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING?</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264014060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What their worth IS what the market will bare.  If you think you're worth more than go somewhere else and do it.  If what you do is worth more, then sell it your self and/or start your own company and compete.  Don't whine because of achieving what you're actually capable of rather than what you dreamed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What their worth IS what the market will bare .
If you think you 're worth more than go somewhere else and do it .
If what you do is worth more , then sell it your self and/or start your own company and compete .
Do n't whine because of achieving what you 're actually capable of rather than what you dreamed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What their worth IS what the market will bare.
If you think you're worth more than go somewhere else and do it.
If what you do is worth more, then sell it your self and/or start your own company and compete.
Don't whine because of achieving what you're actually capable of rather than what you dreamed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30838864</id>
	<title>Cognitive Regulatory Capture</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1263986700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an example of <em>Cognitive Regulatory Capture</em>, a term recently applied to the US Fed and Wall Street
by Willem Buiter, a British economist.  He said:<blockquote><div><p>The Fed listens to Wall Street and believes what it hears. This distortion into a partial and often highly distorted perception of reality is unhealthy and dangerous.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/08/fireworks-at-jackson-hole-buiter-lets.html" title="economicpo...ournal.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/08/fireworks-at-jackson-hole-buiter-lets.html</a> [economicpo...ournal.com]
</p><p>
This is what happens to many regulatory bodies, like the US Fed, FCC, US Patent Office, SEC, FDA, FERC
(Federal Electric Regulatory Commission), etc. They end up promoting and defending their institutional clients rather then performing honest regulation.
</p><p>
The problem is made much worse by revolving doors, money and right wing ideology. The FED is a horrible example of the revolving door: just look at Paulson. When he was in charge of Goldman-Sacks they successfully lobbied to change the leverage ratio of banks  (like Goldman-Sacks)  from 20:1 to  30:1. This made the crash even worse.  Then when he was the Treasury Secretary, he bails out banks at the expense of the national deficit. And by the way, he also helped preserve his own personal wealth. (Why is Pauson not under indictment for fraud?)
</p><p>
As for the corruption of money, a lot of lead researchers at the FDA in charge of specific programs were on the payroll of he very companies that were applying for FDA approval on their topic. All undisclosed to anyone, and all legal under the then current rules. Can you say conflict of interest?
</p><p>
Or look at FERC during the California energy chrisis when ENRON was gaming the system.  The energy lobby got a bunch of pro-industry/anti-regulation hacks (some of whom owned energy monopolies) appointed to FERC, and when the chrisis hit they refused to do anything. On top of that, they blocked California regulators from doing anything. After the damage was done and Califonia wanted to get out of the bad deals that wer made during the worst part of the problem, FERC ruled that the contracts were valid, and the court backed them up.  As a result California is still paying for the bad results of deregulation to this day. For some details see: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/themes/ferc.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/themes/ferc.html</a> [pbs.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an example of Cognitive Regulatory Capture , a term recently applied to the US Fed and Wall Street by Willem Buiter , a British economist .
He said : The Fed listens to Wall Street and believes what it hears .
This distortion into a partial and often highly distorted perception of reality is unhealthy and dangerous .
http : //www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/08/fireworks-at-jackson-hole-buiter-lets.html [ economicpo...ournal.com ] This is what happens to many regulatory bodies , like the US Fed , FCC , US Patent Office , SEC , FDA , FERC ( Federal Electric Regulatory Commission ) , etc .
They end up promoting and defending their institutional clients rather then performing honest regulation .
The problem is made much worse by revolving doors , money and right wing ideology .
The FED is a horrible example of the revolving door : just look at Paulson .
When he was in charge of Goldman-Sacks they successfully lobbied to change the leverage ratio of banks ( like Goldman-Sacks ) from 20 : 1 to 30 : 1 .
This made the crash even worse .
Then when he was the Treasury Secretary , he bails out banks at the expense of the national deficit .
And by the way , he also helped preserve his own personal wealth .
( Why is Pauson not under indictment for fraud ?
) As for the corruption of money , a lot of lead researchers at the FDA in charge of specific programs were on the payroll of he very companies that were applying for FDA approval on their topic .
All undisclosed to anyone , and all legal under the then current rules .
Can you say conflict of interest ?
Or look at FERC during the California energy chrisis when ENRON was gaming the system .
The energy lobby got a bunch of pro-industry/anti-regulation hacks ( some of whom owned energy monopolies ) appointed to FERC , and when the chrisis hit they refused to do anything .
On top of that , they blocked California regulators from doing anything .
After the damage was done and Califonia wanted to get out of the bad deals that wer made during the worst part of the problem , FERC ruled that the contracts were valid , and the court backed them up .
As a result California is still paying for the bad results of deregulation to this day .
For some details see : http : //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/themes/ferc.html [ pbs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an example of Cognitive Regulatory Capture, a term recently applied to the US Fed and Wall Street
by Willem Buiter, a British economist.
He said:The Fed listens to Wall Street and believes what it hears.
This distortion into a partial and often highly distorted perception of reality is unhealthy and dangerous.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/08/fireworks-at-jackson-hole-buiter-lets.html [economicpo...ournal.com]

This is what happens to many regulatory bodies, like the US Fed, FCC, US Patent Office, SEC, FDA, FERC
(Federal Electric Regulatory Commission), etc.
They end up promoting and defending their institutional clients rather then performing honest regulation.
The problem is made much worse by revolving doors, money and right wing ideology.
The FED is a horrible example of the revolving door: just look at Paulson.
When he was in charge of Goldman-Sacks they successfully lobbied to change the leverage ratio of banks  (like Goldman-Sacks)  from 20:1 to  30:1.
This made the crash even worse.
Then when he was the Treasury Secretary, he bails out banks at the expense of the national deficit.
And by the way, he also helped preserve his own personal wealth.
(Why is Pauson not under indictment for fraud?
)

As for the corruption of money, a lot of lead researchers at the FDA in charge of specific programs were on the payroll of he very companies that were applying for FDA approval on their topic.
All undisclosed to anyone, and all legal under the then current rules.
Can you say conflict of interest?
Or look at FERC during the California energy chrisis when ENRON was gaming the system.
The energy lobby got a bunch of pro-industry/anti-regulation hacks (some of whom owned energy monopolies) appointed to FERC, and when the chrisis hit they refused to do anything.
On top of that, they blocked California regulators from doing anything.
After the damage was done and Califonia wanted to get out of the bad deals that wer made during the worst part of the problem, FERC ruled that the contracts were valid, and the court backed them up.
As a result California is still paying for the bad results of deregulation to this day.
For some details see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/themes/ferc.html [pbs.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833852</id>
	<title>Wonder how this is Obama's fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(wait, nevermind. talking politics on Slashdot is a bad idea.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( wait , nevermind .
talking politics on Slashdot is a bad idea .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(wait, nevermind.
talking politics on Slashdot is a bad idea.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30838278</id>
	<title>Uh, this is why they need economists...</title>
	<author>Primitive Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1263984540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because they have to have somebody on hand who understands the simple fact that what the market will bear IS what engineers are worth. By definition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because they have to have somebody on hand who understands the simple fact that what the market will bear IS what engineers are worth .
By definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because they have to have somebody on hand who understands the simple fact that what the market will bear IS what engineers are worth.
By definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30842176</id>
	<title>Here's An Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about just disbanding the FCC?  We can regulate ourselves just fine.  I could understand if a childrens show showed something horrible, but do we need to have people watching ADULT oriented shows (like some of the cartoons out now, such as Family Guy or South Park) then complaining about the humour?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about just disbanding the FCC ?
We can regulate ourselves just fine .
I could understand if a childrens show showed something horrible , but do we need to have people watching ADULT oriented shows ( like some of the cartoons out now , such as Family Guy or South Park ) then complaining about the humour ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about just disbanding the FCC?
We can regulate ourselves just fine.
I could understand if a childrens show showed something horrible, but do we need to have people watching ADULT oriented shows (like some of the cartoons out now, such as Family Guy or South Park) then complaining about the humour?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833956</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible!</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dammit.  I need coffee.</p><p>It is on Hulu:<br><a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/50395/family-guy-the-freaking-fcc" title="hulu.com">http://www.hulu.com/watch/50395/family-guy-the-freaking-fcc</a> [hulu.com]</p><p>And it's Season 4, episode 14.  Somehow my copy is mislabeled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit .
I need coffee.It is on Hulu : http : //www.hulu.com/watch/50395/family-guy-the-freaking-fcc [ hulu.com ] And it 's Season 4 , episode 14 .
Somehow my copy is mislabeled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit.
I need coffee.It is on Hulu:http://www.hulu.com/watch/50395/family-guy-the-freaking-fcc [hulu.com]And it's Season 4, episode 14.
Somehow my copy is mislabeled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834396</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264012260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it is the same FCC which will enforce the other "Puritan" view called<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... "Fairness Doctrine".</p><p>And yes, I agree, stick to regulating the wavelengths and not what rides on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it is the same FCC which will enforce the other " Puritan " view called .... " Fairness Doctrine " .And yes , I agree , stick to regulating the wavelengths and not what rides on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it is the same FCC which will enforce the other "Puritan" view called .... "Fairness Doctrine".And yes, I agree, stick to regulating the wavelengths and not what rides on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30850758</id>
	<title>Re:More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>Chosen Reject</author>
	<datestamp>1264066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections, and Monsanto goes away tomorrow.  Or at the very least, changes drastically so customers won't make them go away tomorrow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple ?
Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections , and Monsanto goes away tomorrow .
Or at the very least , changes drastically so customers wo n't make them go away tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?
Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections, and Monsanto goes away tomorrow.
Or at the very least, changes drastically so customers won't make them go away tomorrow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833734</id>
	<title>Wait</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%.</i> I can understand why the FCC needs engineers... but why exactly do they need economists to regulate communication?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly , the overall number of economists decreased by 14 \ % .
I can understand why the FCC needs engineers... but why exactly do they need economists to regulate communication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14\%.
I can understand why the FCC needs engineers... but why exactly do they need economists to regulate communication?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30842840</id>
	<title>Re:More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1264014180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People really don't get this.  We all REALLY vote with our DOLLARS.  "Evil corporations" that buy off politicians, etc... get the money from CUSTOMERS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People really do n't get this .
We all REALLY vote with our DOLLARS .
" Evil corporations " that buy off politicians , etc... get the money from CUSTOMERS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People really don't get this.
We all REALLY vote with our DOLLARS.
"Evil corporations" that buy off politicians, etc... get the money from CUSTOMERS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800</id>
	<title>More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes.  At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?</p><p>Enjoy your corporate deathburger:  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_3pIDSQ1rdA" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_3pIDSQ1rdA</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes .
At what point do Americans call 'enough !
' on corporate hegemony ? Enjoy your corporate deathburger : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = \ _3pIDSQ1rdA [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes.
At what point do Americans call 'enough!
' on corporate hegemony?Enjoy your corporate deathburger:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_3pIDSQ1rdA [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836956</id>
	<title>Re:More Than One Way to Deregulate</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263979500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes.  At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?</p></div><p>Maybe when the government starts paying the going rate for skilled jobs that are in demand in the private sector?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes .
At what point do Americans call 'enough !
' on corporate hegemony ? Maybe when the government starts paying the going rate for skilled jobs that are in demand in the private sector ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes.
At what point do Americans call 'enough!
' on corporate hegemony?Maybe when the government starts paying the going rate for skilled jobs that are in demand in the private sector?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834366</id>
	<title>Who needs them anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should deregulate all of it at let private enterprise work it out through competition and unrestrained capitalism. That's the answer to everything. I know, Fox News told me so. What, worried about your privacy? Hire a privacy consultant from a company that makes money protecting your privacy. It's the American Way (and why should I pay for your privacy anyway?). Worried about pr0n broadcasts? Why, they'd make more money than damn near anything else. And after all, money is the only thing that matters. Oh wait, you're worried about the children. I suggest you hire a nanny (more private enterprise) to watch them when you're not around (and why should I pay to protect your children anyway?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should deregulate all of it at let private enterprise work it out through competition and unrestrained capitalism .
That 's the answer to everything .
I know , Fox News told me so .
What , worried about your privacy ?
Hire a privacy consultant from a company that makes money protecting your privacy .
It 's the American Way ( and why should I pay for your privacy anyway ? ) .
Worried about pr0n broadcasts ?
Why , they 'd make more money than damn near anything else .
And after all , money is the only thing that matters .
Oh wait , you 're worried about the children .
I suggest you hire a nanny ( more private enterprise ) to watch them when you 're not around ( and why should I pay to protect your children anyway ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should deregulate all of it at let private enterprise work it out through competition and unrestrained capitalism.
That's the answer to everything.
I know, Fox News told me so.
What, worried about your privacy?
Hire a privacy consultant from a company that makes money protecting your privacy.
It's the American Way (and why should I pay for your privacy anyway?).
Worried about pr0n broadcasts?
Why, they'd make more money than damn near anything else.
And after all, money is the only thing that matters.
Oh wait, you're worried about the children.
I suggest you hire a nanny (more private enterprise) to watch them when you're not around (and why should I pay to protect your children anyway?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835180</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible!</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1264015560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For real. I have heard some really scary stories about his behavior (not personal, organizational) from folks inside the FCC. Most of the staff was literally cheering when Genachowski took over. They even wrote some custom xmas carols to celebrate the new leadership - which tells how bad it was before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For real .
I have heard some really scary stories about his behavior ( not personal , organizational ) from folks inside the FCC .
Most of the staff was literally cheering when Genachowski took over .
They even wrote some custom xmas carols to celebrate the new leadership - which tells how bad it was before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For real.
I have heard some really scary stories about his behavior (not personal, organizational) from folks inside the FCC.
Most of the staff was literally cheering when Genachowski took over.
They even wrote some custom xmas carols to celebrate the new leadership - which tells how bad it was before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1264010640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?</p><p>I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..</p><p>(FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)</p></div></blockquote><p>Except it wasn't the FCC who really wanted to do it, but the fact that a puritanical lobby group got offended, and flooded the FCC with complaints. The Parents Television Council offers ways to easily send in complaints, and it's estimated that 99\% of the complaints came from the PTC. Unfortunately, by legislation, the FCC has to act on these complaints, even if they're stupid.</p><p>Source: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2006/10/7912.ars" title="arstechnica.com">One boob == 963,000 FCC complaints</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same FCC that took a " save the children " stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back ? I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism.. ( FCC , free advice , stick to regulating wavelengths and you 'll get more support from scientists and engineers ) Except it was n't the FCC who really wanted to do it , but the fact that a puritanical lobby group got offended , and flooded the FCC with complaints .
The Parents Television Council offers ways to easily send in complaints , and it 's estimated that 99 \ % of the complaints came from the PTC .
Unfortunately , by legislation , the FCC has to act on these complaints , even if they 're stupid.Source : One boob = = 963,000 FCC complaints [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..(FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)Except it wasn't the FCC who really wanted to do it, but the fact that a puritanical lobby group got offended, and flooded the FCC with complaints.
The Parents Television Council offers ways to easily send in complaints, and it's estimated that 99\% of the complaints came from the PTC.
Unfortunately, by legislation, the FCC has to act on these complaints, even if they're stupid.Source: One boob == 963,000 FCC complaints [arstechnica.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30842840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30850758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30837070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30840680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30838278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1551217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30850758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30842840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30835094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30837070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30836980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30834804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30840680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30838278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30837894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1551217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1551217.30833888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
