<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_26_1818231</id>
	<title>Evidence Weakens That China Did the Recent Cyberattacks</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264532220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>click2005 notes an article in The Register <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/aurora\_attack\_origins/">calling into question the one piece of hard evidence</a> that has been put forward to pin the <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/12/2329231/Google-Hacked-May-Pull-Out-of-China">Google cyberattacks</a> on China. It was <a href="http://www.secureworks.com/research/blog/index.php/2010/1/20/operation-aurora-clues-in-the-code/">claimed</a> that a CRC algorithm found in the Aurora attack code was particular to Chinese-language developers. Now evidence emerges that this algorithm has been widely known for years and used in English-language books and websites. Wired has a post introducing the Pentagon's recently initiated effort to <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/pentagon-searches-for-digital-dna-to-identify-hackers">identify the "digital DNA"</a> of hackers and/or their tools; this program is part of a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/26cyber.html?hp=&amp;pagewanted=all">wide-ranging effort by the US government</a> to find useful means of deterring cyberattacks. This latter NY Times article notes that Google may have found the best deterrence so far &mdash; the threat to withdraw its services from the Chinese market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>click2005 notes an article in The Register calling into question the one piece of hard evidence that has been put forward to pin the Google cyberattacks on China .
It was claimed that a CRC algorithm found in the Aurora attack code was particular to Chinese-language developers .
Now evidence emerges that this algorithm has been widely known for years and used in English-language books and websites .
Wired has a post introducing the Pentagon 's recently initiated effort to identify the " digital DNA " of hackers and/or their tools ; this program is part of a wide-ranging effort by the US government to find useful means of deterring cyberattacks .
This latter NY Times article notes that Google may have found the best deterrence so far    the threat to withdraw its services from the Chinese market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>click2005 notes an article in The Register calling into question the one piece of hard evidence that has been put forward to pin the Google cyberattacks on China.
It was claimed that a CRC algorithm found in the Aurora attack code was particular to Chinese-language developers.
Now evidence emerges that this algorithm has been widely known for years and used in English-language books and websites.
Wired has a post introducing the Pentagon's recently initiated effort to identify the "digital DNA" of hackers and/or their tools; this program is part of a wide-ranging effort by the US government to find useful means of deterring cyberattacks.
This latter NY Times article notes that Google may have found the best deterrence so far — the threat to withdraw its services from the Chinese market.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910226</id>
	<title>Please Define "China"</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1264501860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If when you say "China was responsible for the attacks" you are referring to the Chinese Government or persons acting at the direction or in the employ of the Chinese Government, I'd agree that's probably not the case.  On the other hand if you are referring to persons based in China acting of their own volition in an attempt to show patriotism for their country possibly in return or with the expectation of favors from those in power then I think we can safely say "Yeah, that's them."  It is all very convenient for the Chinese Government because they can sit back and truthfully say "We did not do these things."  If anyone can ever really prove the source of these attacks, the Chinese Government can shake a finger at those responsible and say "Don't do that again." claiming they've done all they can to stop the rogue vandals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If when you say " China was responsible for the attacks " you are referring to the Chinese Government or persons acting at the direction or in the employ of the Chinese Government , I 'd agree that 's probably not the case .
On the other hand if you are referring to persons based in China acting of their own volition in an attempt to show patriotism for their country possibly in return or with the expectation of favors from those in power then I think we can safely say " Yeah , that 's them .
" It is all very convenient for the Chinese Government because they can sit back and truthfully say " We did not do these things .
" If anyone can ever really prove the source of these attacks , the Chinese Government can shake a finger at those responsible and say " Do n't do that again .
" claiming they 've done all they can to stop the rogue vandals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If when you say "China was responsible for the attacks" you are referring to the Chinese Government or persons acting at the direction or in the employ of the Chinese Government, I'd agree that's probably not the case.
On the other hand if you are referring to persons based in China acting of their own volition in an attempt to show patriotism for their country possibly in return or with the expectation of favors from those in power then I think we can safely say "Yeah, that's them.
"  It is all very convenient for the Chinese Government because they can sit back and truthfully say "We did not do these things.
"  If anyone can ever really prove the source of these attacks, the Chinese Government can shake a finger at those responsible and say "Don't do that again.
" claiming they've done all they can to stop the rogue vandals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911902</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1264510920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?</p> </div><p>*shrug* A loyal PRC citizen wanting to do the "right thing" or someone who'd like to sell the information for money to the Chinese government or someone else who might need leverage in negotiation with the Chinese government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What possible gain could anyone else have from this information ?
* shrug * A loyal PRC citizen wanting to do the " right thing " or someone who 'd like to sell the information for money to the Chinese government or someone else who might need leverage in negotiation with the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
*shrug* A loyal PRC citizen wanting to do the "right thing" or someone who'd like to sell the information for money to the Chinese government or someone else who might need leverage in negotiation with the Chinese government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908586</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Screw them.</p></div><p>I agree.  Right now I'm training an army of American hackers that are going to roll over China.  Check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmv8quf\_xM" title="youtube.com">this video</a> [youtube.com] of my protege at work.  That madd h4xx iz a freebie for you, the more advanced stuff (like photoshopping a cat's head onto a dog's body) will cost ya.  USA #1 baby.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw them.I agree .
Right now I 'm training an army of American hackers that are going to roll over China .
Check out this video [ youtube.com ] of my protege at work .
That madd h4xx iz a freebie for you , the more advanced stuff ( like photoshopping a cat 's head onto a dog 's body ) will cost ya .
USA # 1 baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw them.I agree.
Right now I'm training an army of American hackers that are going to roll over China.
Check out this video [youtube.com] of my protege at work.
That madd h4xx iz a freebie for you, the more advanced stuff (like photoshopping a cat's head onto a dog's body) will cost ya.
USA #1 baby.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30916086</id>
	<title>GAH.</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264601880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop the marketingspeak already. Why is everything "DNA" these days ? Sleep DNA, colour DNA, digital DNA. I move we terminate all lifeforms containing too much stupid-DNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop the marketingspeak already .
Why is everything " DNA " these days ?
Sleep DNA , colour DNA , digital DNA .
I move we terminate all lifeforms containing too much stupid-DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop the marketingspeak already.
Why is everything "DNA" these days ?
Sleep DNA, colour DNA, digital DNA.
I move we terminate all lifeforms containing too much stupid-DNA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909838</id>
	<title>Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264500120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh. My. God. I just reran the search and it's changed. The top results are in English! It's the British that are attacking Google! Wait, one of the links is to a Blogspot site. Sweet Jesus, the attacks are coming from inside Google's own employee base! But wait, if you click crc\_ta[16] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list. Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!</p></div><p>Actually, your link likely won't substantially alter the rankings of Slashdot when you search for that term. The repetition of the term in this thread will do so, but your title likely not do so since all links in comments in slashdot automatically get nofollow tags. That means that search engines give the links little to no weight. This is a common tactic to reduce the incentive of spammers to spam links.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh .
My. God .
I just reran the search and it 's changed .
The top results are in English !
It 's the British that are attacking Google !
Wait , one of the links is to a Blogspot site .
Sweet Jesus , the attacks are coming from inside Google 's own employee base !
But wait , if you click crc \ _ta [ 16 ] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list .
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google ! Actually , your link likely wo n't substantially alter the rankings of Slashdot when you search for that term .
The repetition of the term in this thread will do so , but your title likely not do so since all links in comments in slashdot automatically get nofollow tags .
That means that search engines give the links little to no weight .
This is a common tactic to reduce the incentive of spammers to spam links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh.
My. God.
I just reran the search and it's changed.
The top results are in English!
It's the British that are attacking Google!
Wait, one of the links is to a Blogspot site.
Sweet Jesus, the attacks are coming from inside Google's own employee base!
But wait, if you click crc\_ta[16] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list.
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!Actually, your link likely won't substantially alter the rankings of Slashdot when you search for that term.
The repetition of the term in this thread will do so, but your title likely not do so since all links in comments in slashdot automatically get nofollow tags.
That means that search engines give the links little to no weight.
This is a common tactic to reduce the incentive of spammers to spam links.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912736</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>barath\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1264517400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?"</p> </div><p>Maybe the human rights activists' wife and / or mistresses ?. You got to hope that there's better proof than that before setting off a diplomatic incident. And from what's out so far, there does seem to be more; maybe there's enough for Google, but not for the US state department.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China ?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information ?
" Maybe the human rights activists ' wife and / or mistresses ? .
You got to hope that there 's better proof than that before setting off a diplomatic incident .
And from what 's out so far , there does seem to be more ; maybe there 's enough for Google , but not for the US state department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
" Maybe the human rights activists' wife and / or mistresses ?.
You got to hope that there's better proof than that before setting off a diplomatic incident.
And from what's out so far, there does seem to be more; maybe there's enough for Google, but not for the US state department.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908576</id>
	<title>This isn't a court of law</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1264537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google doesn't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. More to the point they don't have to prove it beyond any and all doubt no matter what, which is the standard many geeks seem to use. Internally, they only have to prove it to their own satisfaction, which it would seem they've done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt .
More to the point they do n't have to prove it beyond any and all doubt no matter what , which is the standard many geeks seem to use .
Internally , they only have to prove it to their own satisfaction , which it would seem they 've done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
More to the point they don't have to prove it beyond any and all doubt no matter what, which is the standard many geeks seem to use.
Internally, they only have to prove it to their own satisfaction, which it would seem they've done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909878</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Be Foolish</title>
	<author>tgibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264500300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, it's hard to see the payoff. Even with censorship, Google in China seems to be more independent than Baidu, so it's hard to see how Human Rights groups would benefit by driving Google out of China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it 's hard to see the payoff .
Even with censorship , Google in China seems to be more independent than Baidu , so it 's hard to see how Human Rights groups would benefit by driving Google out of China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it's hard to see the payoff.
Even with censorship, Google in China seems to be more independent than Baidu, so it's hard to see how Human Rights groups would benefit by driving Google out of China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915206</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chinese...</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1264593720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, that's it. The Obama Administration, on the backs of blaming the Bush Administration for all the foreign policy screwups, decided that they could get away with screwing the Chinese covertly. It must have been them, my gut tells me this. Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , that 's it .
The Obama Administration , on the backs of blaming the Bush Administration for all the foreign policy screwups , decided that they could get away with screwing the Chinese covertly .
It must have been them , my gut tells me this .
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, that's it.
The Obama Administration, on the backs of blaming the Bush Administration for all the foreign policy screwups, decided that they could get away with screwing the Chinese covertly.
It must have been them, my gut tells me this.
Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908644</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just don't know. It could be an attack by Chinese hackers. It could be a false flag operation by the CIA posing as Chinese hackers. It could be Russian hackers pretending to be the CIA posing as Chinese hackers. It could be an internal hack to give Google more leeway in China. It could be an internal hack to give Google an excuse to leave China. It could be a publicity stunt by human rights activists. No public announcement can be trusted if so much is at stake. The only people who will ever know for sure are the ones who did it.</p><p>This is what non-technical people don't get about computer networks: The only thing which matters is hard security. "This is forbidden" is not security. The intruders can be anywhere in the world and they can, if they're careful, avoid leaving traces. The only defense against that kind of threat is making intrusions as hard as possible. There is no meaningful legal defense. You can raise a diplomatic fuss, but it will not get you anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just do n't know .
It could be an attack by Chinese hackers .
It could be a false flag operation by the CIA posing as Chinese hackers .
It could be Russian hackers pretending to be the CIA posing as Chinese hackers .
It could be an internal hack to give Google more leeway in China .
It could be an internal hack to give Google an excuse to leave China .
It could be a publicity stunt by human rights activists .
No public announcement can be trusted if so much is at stake .
The only people who will ever know for sure are the ones who did it.This is what non-technical people do n't get about computer networks : The only thing which matters is hard security .
" This is forbidden " is not security .
The intruders can be anywhere in the world and they can , if they 're careful , avoid leaving traces .
The only defense against that kind of threat is making intrusions as hard as possible .
There is no meaningful legal defense .
You can raise a diplomatic fuss , but it will not get you anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just don't know.
It could be an attack by Chinese hackers.
It could be a false flag operation by the CIA posing as Chinese hackers.
It could be Russian hackers pretending to be the CIA posing as Chinese hackers.
It could be an internal hack to give Google more leeway in China.
It could be an internal hack to give Google an excuse to leave China.
It could be a publicity stunt by human rights activists.
No public announcement can be trusted if so much is at stake.
The only people who will ever know for sure are the ones who did it.This is what non-technical people don't get about computer networks: The only thing which matters is hard security.
"This is forbidden" is not security.
The intruders can be anywhere in the world and they can, if they're careful, avoid leaving traces.
The only defense against that kind of threat is making intrusions as hard as possible.
There is no meaningful legal defense.
You can raise a diplomatic fuss, but it will not get you anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909180</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1264497360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and sometimes you just have to fall back on mail fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and sometimes you just have to fall back on mail fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and sometimes you just have to fall back on mail fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</id>
	<title>Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264535880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Let's check out <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html" title="blogspot.com">the official Google word from the official legal chief officer of Google</a> [blogspot.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was <b>accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists</b>.</p> </div><p>Emphasis mine.  Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country.  Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of <i>Human Rights Activists in China</i>?  What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?<br> <br>

I'm not saying hard evidence has been provided one way or the other (I'm not even sure it <i>could</i> be proven one way or the other unless someone claims ownership) but the only evidence the accuser offered up was this.  Not that the "algorithm was only known to Chinese" nor anything as simpleton.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's check out the official Google word from the official legal chief officer of Google [ blogspot.com ] : Second , we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists .
Emphasis mine .
Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country .
Instead , the obvious question is simply this : Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China ?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information ?
I 'm not saying hard evidence has been provided one way or the other ( I 'm not even sure it could be proven one way or the other unless someone claims ownership ) but the only evidence the accuser offered up was this .
Not that the " algorithm was only known to Chinese " nor anything as simpleton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Let's check out the official Google word from the official legal chief officer of Google [blogspot.com]:Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
Emphasis mine.
Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country.
Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
I'm not saying hard evidence has been provided one way or the other (I'm not even sure it could be proven one way or the other unless someone claims ownership) but the only evidence the accuser offered up was this.
Not that the "algorithm was only known to Chinese" nor anything as simpleton.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913292</id>
	<title>Re:"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264523580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never went to third grade, you insensitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never went to third grade , you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never went to third grade, you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915832</id>
	<title>Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>AzureDiamond</author>
	<datestamp>1264599900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But wait, if you click crc\_ta[16] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list. Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!</p></div><p>That evidence is pretty convincing to me. Cowboy Neal is hereby sentenced to death by lethal injection. And may God have mercy on his soul.</p><p>NEXT!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But wait , if you click crc \ _ta [ 16 ] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list .
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google ! That evidence is pretty convincing to me .
Cowboy Neal is hereby sentenced to death by lethal injection .
And may God have mercy on his soul.NEXT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wait, if you click crc\_ta[16] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list.
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!That evidence is pretty convincing to me.
Cowboy Neal is hereby sentenced to death by lethal injection.
And may God have mercy on his soul.NEXT!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908388</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me play devil's advocate here for one second.</p><p>You are assuming that the only party interested in following or harassing the human rights activists are the Chinese government. It's not hard to think up *other* persons or groups that might be interested.   Judging from the ultra nationalist kooks <em>we</em> have, we can imagine private nutcases who think of themselves as more patriotic than the government, who think the Party is much too wishy washy on the issues of class traitors and much too interested in appeasing the West.</p><p>That's just the second most likely scenario.  Other, more exotic scenarios are possible as well.   In a world with so many people connected to the Internet, virtually every kind of crackpot you can imagine is out there.   All it takes is one with an Internet feed.</p><p>I think we have a preponderance of evidence situation here.  On the whole, the most likely culprit is the Chinese government.   But it's not quite to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage.   You look at the whole web of evidence: the motivations, track record of past behavior, known propensities to industrial espionage, methods used, means and opportunity.   Virtually every single datum is likely to have an innocuous explanation. It's the overall picture that convicts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me play devil 's advocate here for one second.You are assuming that the only party interested in following or harassing the human rights activists are the Chinese government .
It 's not hard to think up * other * persons or groups that might be interested .
Judging from the ultra nationalist kooks we have , we can imagine private nutcases who think of themselves as more patriotic than the government , who think the Party is much too wishy washy on the issues of class traitors and much too interested in appeasing the West.That 's just the second most likely scenario .
Other , more exotic scenarios are possible as well .
In a world with so many people connected to the Internet , virtually every kind of crackpot you can imagine is out there .
All it takes is one with an Internet feed.I think we have a preponderance of evidence situation here .
On the whole , the most likely culprit is the Chinese government .
But it 's not quite to the " beyond a reasonable doubt " stage .
You look at the whole web of evidence : the motivations , track record of past behavior , known propensities to industrial espionage , methods used , means and opportunity .
Virtually every single datum is likely to have an innocuous explanation .
It 's the overall picture that convicts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me play devil's advocate here for one second.You are assuming that the only party interested in following or harassing the human rights activists are the Chinese government.
It's not hard to think up *other* persons or groups that might be interested.
Judging from the ultra nationalist kooks we have, we can imagine private nutcases who think of themselves as more patriotic than the government, who think the Party is much too wishy washy on the issues of class traitors and much too interested in appeasing the West.That's just the second most likely scenario.
Other, more exotic scenarios are possible as well.
In a world with so many people connected to the Internet, virtually every kind of crackpot you can imagine is out there.
All it takes is one with an Internet feed.I think we have a preponderance of evidence situation here.
On the whole, the most likely culprit is the Chinese government.
But it's not quite to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage.
You look at the whole web of evidence: the motivations, track record of past behavior, known propensities to industrial espionage, methods used, means and opportunity.
Virtually every single datum is likely to have an innocuous explanation.
It's the overall picture that convicts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910502</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264502940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?</p><p>Carefully, anonymously, and from behind 10 proxies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How do you say " Propaganda " in Chinese ? Carefully , anonymously , and from behind 10 proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?Carefully, anonymously, and from behind 10 proxies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915162</id>
	<title>Re:imagine that...</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1264593240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rather imagine that China is willing to settle for domination. That allows them to control their largest market, something like a pet poodle. It also gives them leverage when the Chinese leaders decide that their penises would be larger were they to conquer the Greatest Living Empire That  Ever Existed. I am speaking, of course, of Taiwan. It would confirm their belief that they have been smiled upon by the Heavens to take up their rightful mandate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather imagine that China is willing to settle for domination .
That allows them to control their largest market , something like a pet poodle .
It also gives them leverage when the Chinese leaders decide that their penises would be larger were they to conquer the Greatest Living Empire That Ever Existed .
I am speaking , of course , of Taiwan .
It would confirm their belief that they have been smiled upon by the Heavens to take up their rightful mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather imagine that China is willing to settle for domination.
That allows them to control their largest market, something like a pet poodle.
It also gives them leverage when the Chinese leaders decide that their penises would be larger were they to conquer the Greatest Living Empire That  Ever Existed.
I am speaking, of course, of Taiwan.
It would confirm their belief that they have been smiled upon by the Heavens to take up their rightful mandate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909756</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264499820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese. HOWEVER, It could just as easily be the US, the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Google "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or "Tibet". Seems to me that those activists don't have to
manufacture any proof.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese .
HOWEVER , It could just as easily be the US , the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china .
Google " Tiananmen Square Massacre " or " Tibet " .
Seems to me that those activists do n't have to manufacture any proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese.
HOWEVER, It could just as easily be the US, the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china.
Google "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or "Tibet".
Seems to me that those activists don't have to
manufacture any proof.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909532</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you stopped beating your wife yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you stopped beating your wife yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914</id>
	<title>"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of one</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1264539360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she couldn't identify the perpetrator?  That's exactly what Google is doing.  It's not "deterrence" at all.  At best it's indirect deterrence, since it doesn't affect hackers directly; what it affects is the entire Chinese "class" by withdrawing from its network and e-economy, hurting or diminishing the many in an attempt to change the behavior of just a few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she could n't identify the perpetrator ?
That 's exactly what Google is doing .
It 's not " deterrence " at all .
At best it 's indirect deterrence , since it does n't affect hackers directly ; what it affects is the entire Chinese " class " by withdrawing from its network and e-economy , hurting or diminishing the many in an attempt to change the behavior of just a few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she couldn't identify the perpetrator?
That's exactly what Google is doing.
It's not "deterrence" at all.
At best it's indirect deterrence, since it doesn't affect hackers directly; what it affects is the entire Chinese "class" by withdrawing from its network and e-economy, hurting or diminishing the many in an attempt to change the behavior of just a few.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908682</id>
	<title>Cui bono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Set aside the industrial espionage charges. Who benefits from the hacking of the activists' and journalists' accounts? The PRC and its enemies. The usual suspects like the Russian mob, Nigerians, etc. have little, if anything, to gain from this and certainly not enough to offset the harm that could happen if a company with Google's expertise brought scrutiny to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Set aside the industrial espionage charges .
Who benefits from the hacking of the activists ' and journalists ' accounts ?
The PRC and its enemies .
The usual suspects like the Russian mob , Nigerians , etc .
have little , if anything , to gain from this and certainly not enough to offset the harm that could happen if a company with Google 's expertise brought scrutiny to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set aside the industrial espionage charges.
Who benefits from the hacking of the activists' and journalists' accounts?
The PRC and its enemies.
The usual suspects like the Russian mob, Nigerians, etc.
have little, if anything, to gain from this and certainly not enough to offset the harm that could happen if a company with Google's expertise brought scrutiny to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914022</id>
	<title>Re:"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of o</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1264531920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she couldn't identify the perpetrator?  That's exactly what Google is doing. </p></div><p>Not quite. In the classroom setting, the punished students all have the same amount of (no) power, and the teacher has the most.</p><p>So if this situation is a classroom, the Chinese government is the teacher (has all the power), the students are Chinese citizens (same amount of no power), and Google is the guest speaker who, while giving his career presentation, was pickpocketed by the teacher.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she could n't identify the perpetrator ?
That 's exactly what Google is doing .
Not quite .
In the classroom setting , the punished students all have the same amount of ( no ) power , and the teacher has the most.So if this situation is a classroom , the Chinese government is the teacher ( has all the power ) , the students are Chinese citizens ( same amount of no power ) , and Google is the guest speaker who , while giving his career presentation , was pickpocketed by the teacher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she couldn't identify the perpetrator?
That's exactly what Google is doing.
Not quite.
In the classroom setting, the punished students all have the same amount of (no) power, and the teacher has the most.So if this situation is a classroom, the Chinese government is the teacher (has all the power), the students are Chinese citizens (same amount of no power), and Google is the guest speaker who, while giving his career presentation, was pickpocketed by the teacher.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910162</id>
	<title>Grammar Nazi Alert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264501560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't <b>do</b> an attack. You <b>make</b> an attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't do an attack .
You make an attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't do an attack.
You make an attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496</id>
	<title>imagine that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>our largest trading partner isnt secretly trying to destroy us.<br> <br>how is it these "china is coming to kill us all through the tubes" articles make it to slashdot?  they have no nerdworthy content.  One may go so far as to simply claim its masturbatory whitewash more suited for the daily fare of Fox news.<br> <br>
to play devils advocate, yes the aurora code was fascinating reading and research, and this article was at least somewhat meritous if only to discredit the present aire of distrust and fear of china.</htmltext>
<tokenext>our largest trading partner isnt secretly trying to destroy us .
how is it these " china is coming to kill us all through the tubes " articles make it to slashdot ?
they have no nerdworthy content .
One may go so far as to simply claim its masturbatory whitewash more suited for the daily fare of Fox news .
to play devils advocate , yes the aurora code was fascinating reading and research , and this article was at least somewhat meritous if only to discredit the present aire of distrust and fear of china .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our largest trading partner isnt secretly trying to destroy us.
how is it these "china is coming to kill us all through the tubes" articles make it to slashdot?
they have no nerdworthy content.
One may go so far as to simply claim its masturbatory whitewash more suited for the daily fare of Fox news.
to play devils advocate, yes the aurora code was fascinating reading and research, and this article was at least somewhat meritous if only to discredit the present aire of distrust and fear of china.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911010</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264505340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Emphasis mine.  Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country.  Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of <i>Human Rights Activists in China</i>?  What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?</p></div><p>There seems to be the general point of view the Google discovered what was happening and investigated on their own rather than enlist the State Dept. and their help from the beginning to use Google's network to observe, create honey pots and collect further data.</p><p>Perhaps they seeded the compromised accounts with information provided by the State Dept. to see who acted on that information and it turned out to be the Chinese Government?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emphasis mine .
Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country .
Instead , the obvious question is simply this : Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China ?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information ? There seems to be the general point of view the Google discovered what was happening and investigated on their own rather than enlist the State Dept .
and their help from the beginning to use Google 's network to observe , create honey pots and collect further data.Perhaps they seeded the compromised accounts with information provided by the State Dept .
to see who acted on that information and it turned out to be the Chinese Government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emphasis mine.
Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country.
Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China?
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?There seems to be the general point of view the Google discovered what was happening and investigated on their own rather than enlist the State Dept.
and their help from the beginning to use Google's network to observe, create honey pots and collect further data.Perhaps they seeded the compromised accounts with information provided by the State Dept.
to see who acted on that information and it turned out to be the Chinese Government?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909946</id>
	<title>Oddly enough...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264500660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking at some stuff about cosmic rays, and ionizing radiation (as a result of the article about the composite crew module test), and found the same graphic wired is using on a NASA page:</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/98985main\_1025SR\_m.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking at some stuff about cosmic rays , and ionizing radiation ( as a result of the article about the composite crew module test ) , and found the same graphic wired is using on a NASA page : http : //www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/98985main \ _1025SR \ _m.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking at some stuff about cosmic rays, and ionizing radiation (as a result of the article about the composite crew module test), and found the same graphic wired is using on a NASA page:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/98985main\_1025SR\_m.jpg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908522</id>
	<title>The code is in the paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anybody notice the C code in the C language in the paper?</p><p>http://www.fjbmcu.com/chengxu/crcsuan.htm</p><p>function is called cal\_crc</p><p>seems like C is the thing that hacker needs to speak... I mean, yeah, there're comments in Chinese, but I mean, com'on when was the last time you read code with comments that's NOT in Chinese??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anybody notice the C code in the C language in the paper ? http : //www.fjbmcu.com/chengxu/crcsuan.htmfunction is called cal \ _crcseems like C is the thing that hacker needs to speak... I mean , yeah , there 're comments in Chinese , but I mean , com'on when was the last time you read code with comments that 's NOT in Chinese ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anybody notice the C code in the C language in the paper?http://www.fjbmcu.com/chengxu/crcsuan.htmfunction is called cal\_crcseems like C is the thing that hacker needs to speak... I mean, yeah, there're comments in Chinese, but I mean, com'on when was the last time you read code with comments that's NOT in Chinese?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because the entire American way of life today is built around China?</p><p>Virtually all Americans live in a household full of Chinese-made goods. Their clothes are Chinese-made. Their computers and gadgets are Chinese-made. Pick any item in your house, and there's a very good chance that it was made fully, or at least partially, in China.</p><p>The unemployment that's rife throughout America is thanks to the Chinese manufacturers making the aforementioned goods</p><p>Then again, the entire American economy is still going thanks to the Chinese buying American debt.</p><p>Americans can't help but feel a certain love for the Chinese. After all, it's the Chinese that make America today possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because the entire American way of life today is built around China ? Virtually all Americans live in a household full of Chinese-made goods .
Their clothes are Chinese-made .
Their computers and gadgets are Chinese-made .
Pick any item in your house , and there 's a very good chance that it was made fully , or at least partially , in China.The unemployment that 's rife throughout America is thanks to the Chinese manufacturers making the aforementioned goodsThen again , the entire American economy is still going thanks to the Chinese buying American debt.Americans ca n't help but feel a certain love for the Chinese .
After all , it 's the Chinese that make America today possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because the entire American way of life today is built around China?Virtually all Americans live in a household full of Chinese-made goods.
Their clothes are Chinese-made.
Their computers and gadgets are Chinese-made.
Pick any item in your house, and there's a very good chance that it was made fully, or at least partially, in China.The unemployment that's rife throughout America is thanks to the Chinese manufacturers making the aforementioned goodsThen again, the entire American economy is still going thanks to the Chinese buying American debt.Americans can't help but feel a certain love for the Chinese.
After all, it's the Chinese that make America today possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908662</id>
	<title>Re:The Chinese code matches \_exactly\_</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1264538160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course would you want to bet that even if it matched another implementation that it wasn't a Chinese programmer?<br>The first deep programing book I ever read was Data Structures + algorithms = Programs.  It has influenced my code style just as the fact that my first programing teacher was an old Fortran programmer.  Yes I often use i for for loops to this day even though I know it is now considered bad form.<br>So if I wrote an attack would would we say it couldn't have come from the US because some of the algorithms mach those that where taught is Switzerland?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course would you want to bet that even if it matched another implementation that it was n't a Chinese programmer ? The first deep programing book I ever read was Data Structures + algorithms = Programs .
It has influenced my code style just as the fact that my first programing teacher was an old Fortran programmer .
Yes I often use i for for loops to this day even though I know it is now considered bad form.So if I wrote an attack would would we say it could n't have come from the US because some of the algorithms mach those that where taught is Switzerland ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course would you want to bet that even if it matched another implementation that it wasn't a Chinese programmer?The first deep programing book I ever read was Data Structures + algorithms = Programs.
It has influenced my code style just as the fact that my first programing teacher was an old Fortran programmer.
Yes I often use i for for loops to this day even though I know it is now considered bad form.So if I wrote an attack would would we say it couldn't have come from the US because some of the algorithms mach those that where taught is Switzerland?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908390</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1264536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that drunk communist on the steps of the Reichstag proves the communists were trying to destroy Germany.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that drunk communist on the steps of the Reichstag proves the communists were trying to destroy Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that drunk communist on the steps of the Reichstag proves the communists were trying to destroy Germany.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909020</id>
	<title>Watch who they put to death</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1264496640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to know if the hacks were done with Chinese government approval, watch and see who they put to death for it. As with the contaminated baby formula, China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage. Strong enough that it makes them rather transparent when denying something they actually did do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know if the hacks were done with Chinese government approval , watch and see who they put to death for it .
As with the contaminated baby formula , China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage .
Strong enough that it makes them rather transparent when denying something they actually did do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know if the hacks were done with Chinese government approval, watch and see who they put to death for it.
As with the contaminated baby formula, China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage.
Strong enough that it makes them rather transparent when denying something they actually did do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913342</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a court of law</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1264524060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Penalizing, damaging, or even insulting others based on your suspicions along is not socially acceptable behaviour.  Google are making threads in this case, which I suspect they believe will cause damage.  When you are the size of Google you can be expected to meet higher standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Penalizing , damaging , or even insulting others based on your suspicions along is not socially acceptable behaviour .
Google are making threads in this case , which I suspect they believe will cause damage .
When you are the size of Google you can be expected to meet higher standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penalizing, damaging, or even insulting others based on your suspicions along is not socially acceptable behaviour.
Google are making threads in this case, which I suspect they believe will cause damage.
When you are the size of Google you can be expected to meet higher standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908574</id>
	<title>Stop messing with my brains.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1264537560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please stop finding and posting evidence contrary to my preconceived notions! Enough already. As it is I am trying to contain my cognitive dissonance and I can do without all these pesky counter evidence, thank you. Next you will ask me to believe that Microsoft is not 100\% evil and Apple is not 100\% cool and Google is not 100\% non-Evil (tm).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop finding and posting evidence contrary to my preconceived notions !
Enough already .
As it is I am trying to contain my cognitive dissonance and I can do without all these pesky counter evidence , thank you .
Next you will ask me to believe that Microsoft is not 100 \ % evil and Apple is not 100 \ % cool and Google is not 100 \ % non-Evil ( tm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop finding and posting evidence contrary to my preconceived notions!
Enough already.
As it is I am trying to contain my cognitive dissonance and I can do without all these pesky counter evidence, thank you.
Next you will ask me to believe that Microsoft is not 100\% evil and Apple is not 100\% cool and Google is not 100\% non-Evil (tm).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909034</id>
	<title>Re:IP Addresses</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1264496700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't. infrastructure they're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.</p></div><p>
<i>Of course</i> they're rouge agents.  It is <b>Red</b> China, after all...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't .
infrastructure they 're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage .
Of course they 're rouge agents .
It is Red China , after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't.
infrastructure they're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.
Of course they're rouge agents.
It is Red China, after all...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910556</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264503120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It requires someone with enough confidence and resources to attack about twenty US companies for months.<br>
It requires someone to anticipate the unusual move of Google on this attack.<br>
It requires someone confident enough to operate from China and escape the Chinese government's scrutiny, even after their operations have been revealed. <br>I think that makes a lot of hypothesis.<br> <br>
The Chinese government has spent hundreds of millions training a "cyber-army". Maybe they have spent so much in that toy that they are flexing their muscles a bit ? It is not that long ago that experts were <a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article2409865.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk"> warning about the hacking capabilities of China</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It requires someone with enough confidence and resources to attack about twenty US companies for months .
It requires someone to anticipate the unusual move of Google on this attack .
It requires someone confident enough to operate from China and escape the Chinese government 's scrutiny , even after their operations have been revealed .
I think that makes a lot of hypothesis .
The Chinese government has spent hundreds of millions training a " cyber-army " .
Maybe they have spent so much in that toy that they are flexing their muscles a bit ?
It is not that long ago that experts were warning about the hacking capabilities of China [ timesonline.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It requires someone with enough confidence and resources to attack about twenty US companies for months.
It requires someone to anticipate the unusual move of Google on this attack.
It requires someone confident enough to operate from China and escape the Chinese government's scrutiny, even after their operations have been revealed.
I think that makes a lot of hypothesis.
The Chinese government has spent hundreds of millions training a "cyber-army".
Maybe they have spent so much in that toy that they are flexing their muscles a bit ?
It is not that long ago that experts were  warning about the hacking capabilities of China [timesonline.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908364</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just what they <b>want</b> you to think!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just what they want you to think !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just what they want you to think!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909272</id>
	<title>Skip the NY Times</title>
	<author>Kylere</author>
	<datestamp>1264497840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an FYI, skip the NYTimes version of this story, I have had 4 users walk in today with infected systems. It appears that NYTimes has pulled another screwup in security land <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html</a> [cnet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an FYI , skip the NYTimes version of this story , I have had 4 users walk in today with infected systems .
It appears that NYTimes has pulled another screwup in security land http : //news.cnet.com/8301-1009 \ _3-10351460-83.html [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an FYI, skip the NYTimes version of this story, I have had 4 users walk in today with infected systems.
It appears that NYTimes has pulled another screwup in security land http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10351460-83.html [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908458</id>
	<title>Epic lulz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stupid fucking google, sergey brin fucks goats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stupid fucking google , sergey brin fucks goats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stupid fucking google, sergey brin fucks goats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032</id>
	<title>It's not the chinese...</title>
	<author>junglebeast</author>
	<datestamp>1264505460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like China, and I think their government is insanely authoritarian.  From Green Dam to pulling Avatar out of theaters to having no health standards on the toys they produce is only the beginning.  I've heard so many bad things about the Chinese government I wouldn't even know where to begin.  But it doesn't take a genius to realize China is NOT behind these attacks.</p><p>Let's look at the facts.  First Google releases a statement saying they were attacked, and they think it was China, and as a result they are going to remove search restrictions on Google china.  Almost immediately following this Hillary Clinton demands that China explain themselves and Obama somehow diverts the issue of the attack into a case against how we all don't like Chinese govt internet policies...which is really a separate issue.</p><p>The fact is, if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google, they wouldn't make it so damn obvious.  Secondly, after suspicion is squarely put on China, and China vehemently denies it, there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours.  Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish?  There was no extortion.  It accomplished absolutely nothing.  That is, absolutely nothing beneficial for China.  All it does is make China look even more guilty to the idiots who buy into this little hoax.  But China is not so stupid.  If they had been responsible, and caught, they would be trying to lay low...not exacerbate the situation!  The only purpose that those DDoS attacks served was to further frame China and make people angry at them.  It wasn't China.</p><p>I don't know who it was, but my gut tells me it was more likely the US looking for an excuse to further degrate US-China relations.  Why would the US want to degrate US-China relations?  I don't know, but maybe it has something to do with the trillions of dollars we owe China and have no way to pay back.  Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like China , and I think their government is insanely authoritarian .
From Green Dam to pulling Avatar out of theaters to having no health standards on the toys they produce is only the beginning .
I 've heard so many bad things about the Chinese government I would n't even know where to begin .
But it does n't take a genius to realize China is NOT behind these attacks.Let 's look at the facts .
First Google releases a statement saying they were attacked , and they think it was China , and as a result they are going to remove search restrictions on Google china .
Almost immediately following this Hillary Clinton demands that China explain themselves and Obama somehow diverts the issue of the attack into a case against how we all do n't like Chinese govt internet policies...which is really a separate issue.The fact is , if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google , they would n't make it so damn obvious .
Secondly , after suspicion is squarely put on China , and China vehemently denies it , there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours .
Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish ?
There was no extortion .
It accomplished absolutely nothing .
That is , absolutely nothing beneficial for China .
All it does is make China look even more guilty to the idiots who buy into this little hoax .
But China is not so stupid .
If they had been responsible , and caught , they would be trying to lay low...not exacerbate the situation !
The only purpose that those DDoS attacks served was to further frame China and make people angry at them .
It was n't China.I do n't know who it was , but my gut tells me it was more likely the US looking for an excuse to further degrate US-China relations .
Why would the US want to degrate US-China relations ?
I do n't know , but maybe it has something to do with the trillions of dollars we owe China and have no way to pay back .
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like China, and I think their government is insanely authoritarian.
From Green Dam to pulling Avatar out of theaters to having no health standards on the toys they produce is only the beginning.
I've heard so many bad things about the Chinese government I wouldn't even know where to begin.
But it doesn't take a genius to realize China is NOT behind these attacks.Let's look at the facts.
First Google releases a statement saying they were attacked, and they think it was China, and as a result they are going to remove search restrictions on Google china.
Almost immediately following this Hillary Clinton demands that China explain themselves and Obama somehow diverts the issue of the attack into a case against how we all don't like Chinese govt internet policies...which is really a separate issue.The fact is, if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google, they wouldn't make it so damn obvious.
Secondly, after suspicion is squarely put on China, and China vehemently denies it, there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours.
Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish?
There was no extortion.
It accomplished absolutely nothing.
That is, absolutely nothing beneficial for China.
All it does is make China look even more guilty to the idiots who buy into this little hoax.
But China is not so stupid.
If they had been responsible, and caught, they would be trying to lay low...not exacerbate the situation!
The only purpose that those DDoS attacks served was to further frame China and make people angry at them.
It wasn't China.I don't know who it was, but my gut tells me it was more likely the US looking for an excuse to further degrate US-China relations.
Why would the US want to degrate US-China relations?
I don't know, but maybe it has something to do with the trillions of dollars we owe China and have no way to pay back.
Just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912118</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someone tried to get those email accounts so they could sell them to the Chinese government. Im sure there would be a bounty of some sort paid for such details. Looks like the email target thing was a red herring and Google fell for it. It seems to convenient that someone woulod be so stupid to make it so obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone tried to get those email accounts so they could sell them to the Chinese government .
Im sure there would be a bounty of some sort paid for such details .
Looks like the email target thing was a red herring and Google fell for it .
It seems to convenient that someone woulod be so stupid to make it so obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone tried to get those email accounts so they could sell them to the Chinese government.
Im sure there would be a bounty of some sort paid for such details.
Looks like the email target thing was a red herring and Google fell for it.
It seems to convenient that someone woulod be so stupid to make it so obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914402</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1264623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.</i>
</p><p>
Chinese government has full control inside the country, except at the offices of Google. So what is easier to do:
</p><ol>
<li>Mount a cyber-attack on a US company, an attack that is bound to be detected, and an attack that has no lasting advantage (everyone knows that the accounts are compromised.)</li>
<li>Covertly install keyloggers into suspects' computers, or otherwise capture their login/password. Then access their email for years, and nobody knows! Hell, if they use Firefox the passwords aren't even encrypted, all the secret police needs to do is to power the computer up and click a few buttons.</li>
</ol><p>
This reasoning shows that the attack is most useful not to the Chinese government but to people who want to put Google and China on a collision course. If the government watches some people it never lets them know that they are watched.
</p><p>
What we have here is a recreation of Litvinenko's poisoning, only done on the Net. In both cases countries were blamed, though any intelligent observer instantly sees that such an extravagant method is not something that secret services ever use. If a secret service wants someone dead, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">the guy just commits suicide</a> [dailymail.co.uk].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists .
Chinese government has full control inside the country , except at the offices of Google .
So what is easier to do : Mount a cyber-attack on a US company , an attack that is bound to be detected , and an attack that has no lasting advantage ( everyone knows that the accounts are compromised .
) Covertly install keyloggers into suspects ' computers , or otherwise capture their login/password .
Then access their email for years , and nobody knows !
Hell , if they use Firefox the passwords are n't even encrypted , all the secret police needs to do is to power the computer up and click a few buttons .
This reasoning shows that the attack is most useful not to the Chinese government but to people who want to put Google and China on a collision course .
If the government watches some people it never lets them know that they are watched .
What we have here is a recreation of Litvinenko 's poisoning , only done on the Net .
In both cases countries were blamed , though any intelligent observer instantly sees that such an extravagant method is not something that secret services ever use .
If a secret service wants someone dead , the guy just commits suicide [ dailymail.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.
Chinese government has full control inside the country, except at the offices of Google.
So what is easier to do:

Mount a cyber-attack on a US company, an attack that is bound to be detected, and an attack that has no lasting advantage (everyone knows that the accounts are compromised.
)
Covertly install keyloggers into suspects' computers, or otherwise capture their login/password.
Then access their email for years, and nobody knows!
Hell, if they use Firefox the passwords aren't even encrypted, all the secret police needs to do is to power the computer up and click a few buttons.
This reasoning shows that the attack is most useful not to the Chinese government but to people who want to put Google and China on a collision course.
If the government watches some people it never lets them know that they are watched.
What we have here is a recreation of Litvinenko's poisoning, only done on the Net.
In both cases countries were blamed, though any intelligent observer instantly sees that such an extravagant method is not something that secret services ever use.
If a secret service wants someone dead, the guy just commits suicide [dailymail.co.uk].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264536660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Thread over. Nothing else to say.</p><p>I certainly didn't think it was the Chinese because the attacks supposedly originated in China. I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.</p><p>Unless THAT part can get discredited, I will still point my finger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Thread over .
Nothing else to say.I certainly did n't think it was the Chinese because the attacks supposedly originated in China .
I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.Unless THAT part can get discredited , I will still point my finger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Thread over.
Nothing else to say.I certainly didn't think it was the Chinese because the attacks supposedly originated in China.
I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.Unless THAT part can get discredited, I will still point my finger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909944</id>
	<title>Re:"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of o</title>
	<author>tgibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264500660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the scale of the attacks, the targets of the attacks, and the fact that they went on in a country that is fanatical about monitoring internet use, strongly suggests that the Chinese government either conducted or encouraged the attack. So it is reasonable for Google to hold the Chinese government responsible. Clearly Google's view is, "We try to cooperate with your unreasonable censorship rules, we expect you not to try to crack into our systems. You didn't hold up your end of the bargain, so the deal is off. If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the scale of the attacks , the targets of the attacks , and the fact that they went on in a country that is fanatical about monitoring internet use , strongly suggests that the Chinese government either conducted or encouraged the attack .
So it is reasonable for Google to hold the Chinese government responsible .
Clearly Google 's view is , " We try to cooperate with your unreasonable censorship rules , we expect you not to try to crack into our systems .
You did n't hold up your end of the bargain , so the deal is off .
If you do n't like it , we 'll take our ball and go home .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the scale of the attacks, the targets of the attacks, and the fact that they went on in a country that is fanatical about monitoring internet use, strongly suggests that the Chinese government either conducted or encouraged the attack.
So it is reasonable for Google to hold the Chinese government responsible.
Clearly Google's view is, "We try to cooperate with your unreasonable censorship rules, we expect you not to try to crack into our systems.
You didn't hold up your end of the bargain, so the deal is off.
If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909088</id>
	<title>Re:imagine that...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264496940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not coming to destroy us. They are doing this to crack down on their own dissidents, because quite frankly, all this new-fangled communication media scares the shit out of them. After all, look at all the trouble it has caused in Iran! Imagine another tiananmen square protest, but this time using Twitter and GPS to avoid the soldiers... can you begin to see why China is desperate to do anything they can to keep these people from communicating with each other? Suddenly you have flash mobs that are much quicker to organize and move than the creaky Chinese bureaucracy. Combine that with the end of the Faustian bargain "Give us economic prosperity and we'll stop complaining about democracy" brought about by the global economic meltdown, and China could have a really big problem on it's hands. They are just being proactive in trying to prevent that happening... wouldn't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not coming to destroy us .
They are doing this to crack down on their own dissidents , because quite frankly , all this new-fangled communication media scares the shit out of them .
After all , look at all the trouble it has caused in Iran !
Imagine another tiananmen square protest , but this time using Twitter and GPS to avoid the soldiers... can you begin to see why China is desperate to do anything they can to keep these people from communicating with each other ?
Suddenly you have flash mobs that are much quicker to organize and move than the creaky Chinese bureaucracy .
Combine that with the end of the Faustian bargain " Give us economic prosperity and we 'll stop complaining about democracy " brought about by the global economic meltdown , and China could have a really big problem on it 's hands .
They are just being proactive in trying to prevent that happening... would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not coming to destroy us.
They are doing this to crack down on their own dissidents, because quite frankly, all this new-fangled communication media scares the shit out of them.
After all, look at all the trouble it has caused in Iran!
Imagine another tiananmen square protest, but this time using Twitter and GPS to avoid the soldiers... can you begin to see why China is desperate to do anything they can to keep these people from communicating with each other?
Suddenly you have flash mobs that are much quicker to organize and move than the creaky Chinese bureaucracy.
Combine that with the end of the Faustian bargain "Give us economic prosperity and we'll stop complaining about democracy" brought about by the global economic meltdown, and China could have a really big problem on it's hands.
They are just being proactive in trying to prevent that happening... wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660</id>
	<title>IP Addresses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The smoking gun I'd heard about was the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars" title="arstechnica.com">IP Addresses</a> [arstechnica.com] of the command servers, not this CRC algorithm.
<br> <br>
While these machines <i>could</i> be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't. infrastructure they're even <i>less</i> likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The smoking gun I 'd heard about was the IP Addresses [ arstechnica.com ] of the command servers , not this CRC algorithm .
While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't .
infrastructure they 're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smoking gun I'd heard about was the IP Addresses [arstechnica.com] of the command servers, not this CRC algorithm.
While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't.
infrastructure they're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909188</id>
	<title>Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264497420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!<br></i><br>We slashdotted China? Wow, I'm impressed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google ! We slashdotted China ?
Wow , I 'm impressed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!We slashdotted China?
Wow, I'm impressed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</id>
	<title>Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This CRC-16 implementation seems to be virtually unknown outside of China, as shown by a Google search for one of the key variables, "crc\_ta[16]". At the time of this writing, almost every page with meaningful content concerning the algorithm is Chinese:</p></div><p>Oh.  My.  God.  I <i>just</i> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=\%22crc\_ta\%5B16\%5D\%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com">reran the search</a> [google.com] and it's changed.  The top results are in English!  It's the British that are attacking Google!  Wait, one of the links is to a Blogspot site.  Sweet Jesus, the attacks are coming from <i>inside</i> Google's own employee base!  But wait, if you click <a href="https://slashdot.org/" title="slashdot.org">crc\_ta[16]</a> [slashdot.org] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list.  Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!  <br> <br>

Oh Great Britain, Slashdot and even Google themselves, why have you forsaken us?  <br> <br>

Google's pageranking engine returns a good enough set of available crawable webpages.  It <i>does not</i> indicate guilt or scan all of human knowledge.  Using it as any sort of evidence in a huge international scandal is less than prudent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This CRC-16 implementation seems to be virtually unknown outside of China , as shown by a Google search for one of the key variables , " crc \ _ta [ 16 ] " .
At the time of this writing , almost every page with meaningful content concerning the algorithm is Chinese : Oh .
My. God .
I just reran the search [ google.com ] and it 's changed .
The top results are in English !
It 's the British that are attacking Google !
Wait , one of the links is to a Blogspot site .
Sweet Jesus , the attacks are coming from inside Google 's own employee base !
But wait , if you click crc \ _ta [ 16 ] [ slashdot.org ] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list .
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google !
Oh Great Britain , Slashdot and even Google themselves , why have you forsaken us ?
Google 's pageranking engine returns a good enough set of available crawable webpages .
It does not indicate guilt or scan all of human knowledge .
Using it as any sort of evidence in a huge international scandal is less than prudent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This CRC-16 implementation seems to be virtually unknown outside of China, as shown by a Google search for one of the key variables, "crc\_ta[16]".
At the time of this writing, almost every page with meaningful content concerning the algorithm is Chinese:Oh.
My.  God.
I just reran the search [google.com] and it's changed.
The top results are in English!
It's the British that are attacking Google!
Wait, one of the links is to a Blogspot site.
Sweet Jesus, the attacks are coming from inside Google's own employee base!
But wait, if you click crc\_ta[16] [slashdot.org] enough times then Slashdot will show up in the list.
Meaning Slashdot is the attacker on Google!
Oh Great Britain, Slashdot and even Google themselves, why have you forsaken us?
Google's pageranking engine returns a good enough set of available crawable webpages.
It does not indicate guilt or scan all of human knowledge.
Using it as any sort of evidence in a huge international scandal is less than prudent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909112</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1264497060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like Chinese.  They only come up to your knees.  Yet they're wise and they're witty and ready to please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Chinese .
They only come up to your knees .
Yet they 're wise and they 're witty and ready to please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees.
Yet they're wise and they're witty and ready to please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909650</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1264499340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now down to 1 point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now down to 1 point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now down to 1 point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908958</id>
	<title>Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1264539540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So based on the name of a variable the attack is from a certain geographic location?
<br> <br>
The 'who else but the Chinese Government would want access to human rights activist accounts' argument is a little thin. So suddenly if anyone's account gets hacked, we can just immediately assume it's a group that opposes them and then pull our business out of an entire market?
<br> <br>Seems pretty dubious to me<br> <br>
BTW, why are there 5 FAs to read. Holy sheit</htmltext>
<tokenext>So based on the name of a variable the attack is from a certain geographic location ?
The 'who else but the Chinese Government would want access to human rights activist accounts ' argument is a little thin .
So suddenly if anyone 's account gets hacked , we can just immediately assume it 's a group that opposes them and then pull our business out of an entire market ?
Seems pretty dubious to me BTW , why are there 5 FAs to read .
Holy sheit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So based on the name of a variable the attack is from a certain geographic location?
The 'who else but the Chinese Government would want access to human rights activist accounts' argument is a little thin.
So suddenly if anyone's account gets hacked, we can just immediately assume it's a group that opposes them and then pull our business out of an entire market?
Seems pretty dubious to me 
BTW, why are there 5 FAs to read.
Holy sheit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915204</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chinese...</title>
	<author>Fotherington</author>
	<datestamp>1264593660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.

-- John Paul Getty (according to <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jpaulgett129274.html" title="brainyquote.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [brainyquote.com])</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you owe the bank $ 100 , that 's your problem .
If you owe the bank $ 100 million , that 's the bank 's problem .
-- John Paul Getty ( according to here [ brainyquote.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem.
If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
-- John Paul Getty (according to here [brainyquote.com])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911908</id>
	<title>Re:Watch who they put to death</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1264510920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage.</p></div><p>"Embarrassing China on the world stage", which is what has happened with Google, is slightly different from "murdering six children and causing the hospitalisation of nearly a thousand more", which is what happened with the baby food scandal.</p><p>In of those cases, a death sentence seems to me an entirely fitting and responsible reaction. The other case is not remotely comparable, and it is irresponsible to suggest that it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage .
" Embarrassing China on the world stage " , which is what has happened with Google , is slightly different from " murdering six children and causing the hospitalisation of nearly a thousand more " , which is what happened with the baby food scandal.In of those cases , a death sentence seems to me an entirely fitting and responsible reaction .
The other case is not remotely comparable , and it is irresponsible to suggest that it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has a strong tradition of swift trials and swifter executions for those citizens who through unauthorized behavior embarrass them on the world stage.
"Embarrassing China on the world stage", which is what has happened with Google, is slightly different from "murdering six children and causing the hospitalisation of nearly a thousand more", which is what happened with the baby food scandal.In of those cases, a death sentence seems to me an entirely fitting and responsible reaction.
The other case is not remotely comparable, and it is irresponsible to suggest that it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909270</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>gnieboer</author>
	<datestamp>1264497780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That evidence seems pretty flimsy to make multi-million dollar decisions.  Someone tried to hack some email accounts, and Google doesn't want to do business in that country based on circumstantial evidence?</p><p>I see two possibilities<br>1- Google founder (can't remember which one) has wanted out of China for a long time and cares about morals vastly more than $$$, and this particular incident gave him just enough leverage to push a decision over the top, even though it's barely defensive with the provided evidence.</p><p>2- Google's intrepidly independent and talented workforce got pissed off and did a little counter-hacking to figure out where the attack vector was coming from.  They (on their own initiative) invaded proxies and discovered hard evidence that the root of the attack was Chinese gov't IPs.  Management, when presented with this data, decided (wisely) to pretend it didn't exist, as the counter-hacking broke Chinese law and would get a lot of their employees Chinese jail time if not execution.  So their press release mentions only the most bland evidence.</p><p>Personally I prefer #2, though must admit #1 is probably more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That evidence seems pretty flimsy to make multi-million dollar decisions .
Someone tried to hack some email accounts , and Google does n't want to do business in that country based on circumstantial evidence ? I see two possibilities1- Google founder ( ca n't remember which one ) has wanted out of China for a long time and cares about morals vastly more than $ $ $ , and this particular incident gave him just enough leverage to push a decision over the top , even though it 's barely defensive with the provided evidence.2- Google 's intrepidly independent and talented workforce got pissed off and did a little counter-hacking to figure out where the attack vector was coming from .
They ( on their own initiative ) invaded proxies and discovered hard evidence that the root of the attack was Chinese gov't IPs .
Management , when presented with this data , decided ( wisely ) to pretend it did n't exist , as the counter-hacking broke Chinese law and would get a lot of their employees Chinese jail time if not execution .
So their press release mentions only the most bland evidence.Personally I prefer # 2 , though must admit # 1 is probably more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That evidence seems pretty flimsy to make multi-million dollar decisions.
Someone tried to hack some email accounts, and Google doesn't want to do business in that country based on circumstantial evidence?I see two possibilities1- Google founder (can't remember which one) has wanted out of China for a long time and cares about morals vastly more than $$$, and this particular incident gave him just enough leverage to push a decision over the top, even though it's barely defensive with the provided evidence.2- Google's intrepidly independent and talented workforce got pissed off and did a little counter-hacking to figure out where the attack vector was coming from.
They (on their own initiative) invaded proxies and discovered hard evidence that the root of the attack was Chinese gov't IPs.
Management, when presented with this data, decided (wisely) to pretend it didn't exist, as the counter-hacking broke Chinese law and would get a lot of their employees Chinese jail time if not execution.
So their press release mentions only the most bland evidence.Personally I prefer #2, though must admit #1 is probably more likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909566</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>bloodhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1264499040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese. HOWEVER, It could just as easily be the US, the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china. Without proof all you have is likely suspects and given we are supposed to believe in freedoms such as "innocent until proven guilty", what does that make us if we act the way we "think" they themselves are acting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese .
HOWEVER , It could just as easily be the US , the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china .
Without proof all you have is likely suspects and given we are supposed to believe in freedoms such as " innocent until proven guilty " , what does that make us if we act the way we " think " they themselves are acting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The finger certainly points in the direction of the chinese.
HOWEVER, It could just as easily be the US, the chinese rights groups or any other group looking to discredit china.
Without proof all you have is likely suspects and given we are supposed to believe in freedoms such as "innocent until proven guilty", what does that make us if we act the way we "think" they themselves are acting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908800</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1264538820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?</p></div><p> Quietly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you say " Propaganda " in Chinese ?
Quietly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?
Quietly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910788</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious? They cut a deal!</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264504140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that people aren't reaching for the most obvious explanation for this announcement of newly-weakened evidence. Isn't it obvious that it's a part of a deal that Google cut with China, in which it was agreed that tensions will be de-escalated in public?</p><p>Google is saying the equivalent of "Oh, did I call your mama a whore in front of the whole world? No, no, of course not! I was saying she was a HORRibly nice woman, but my phone was cutting out! I would never accuse your mama of pulling tricks for a fiver! We're totally BFF's after all, right?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that people are n't reaching for the most obvious explanation for this announcement of newly-weakened evidence .
Is n't it obvious that it 's a part of a deal that Google cut with China , in which it was agreed that tensions will be de-escalated in public ? Google is saying the equivalent of " Oh , did I call your mama a whore in front of the whole world ?
No , no , of course not !
I was saying she was a HORRibly nice woman , but my phone was cutting out !
I would never accuse your mama of pulling tricks for a fiver !
We 're totally BFF 's after all , right ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that people aren't reaching for the most obvious explanation for this announcement of newly-weakened evidence.
Isn't it obvious that it's a part of a deal that Google cut with China, in which it was agreed that tensions will be de-escalated in public?Google is saying the equivalent of "Oh, did I call your mama a whore in front of the whole world?
No, no, of course not!
I was saying she was a HORRibly nice woman, but my phone was cutting out!
I would never accuse your mama of pulling tricks for a fiver!
We're totally BFF's after all, right?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908422</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that that is not proof at all. When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World, we should be damn sure of what we are doing. Google seems to be, but they also have more information than the rest of us. We are speculating.</p><p>In this case, I am still troubled by the apparent incompetence of the Chinese Government. Why did they think they could do this and get away with it? Didn't they realize that it could damage important and profitable relations with American companies and the Government? It seems like they could gain very little from reading a few individual's e-mails.</p><p>We shouldn't rule out the remote possibility that China is essentially being framed by an entity that can benefit from the US and China fighting. More likely, I think the breaches came from China but were not approved at a very high level (in which case someone is in deep shit). Either way, the US should tread carefully without proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , but I 'd like to point out that that is not proof at all .
When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World , we should be damn sure of what we are doing .
Google seems to be , but they also have more information than the rest of us .
We are speculating.In this case , I am still troubled by the apparent incompetence of the Chinese Government .
Why did they think they could do this and get away with it ?
Did n't they realize that it could damage important and profitable relations with American companies and the Government ?
It seems like they could gain very little from reading a few individual 's e-mails.We should n't rule out the remote possibility that China is essentially being framed by an entity that can benefit from the US and China fighting .
More likely , I think the breaches came from China but were not approved at a very high level ( in which case someone is in deep shit ) .
Either way , the US should tread carefully without proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that that is not proof at all.
When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World, we should be damn sure of what we are doing.
Google seems to be, but they also have more information than the rest of us.
We are speculating.In this case, I am still troubled by the apparent incompetence of the Chinese Government.
Why did they think they could do this and get away with it?
Didn't they realize that it could damage important and profitable relations with American companies and the Government?
It seems like they could gain very little from reading a few individual's e-mails.We shouldn't rule out the remote possibility that China is essentially being framed by an entity that can benefit from the US and China fighting.
More likely, I think the breaches came from China but were not approved at a very high level (in which case someone is in deep shit).
Either way, the US should tread carefully without proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909402</id>
	<title>did the hack REALLY happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll settle for evidence of the in trusion. Consider this crazy far out alternative hypothesis:</p><p>1) Google needs content. Content is what drives clicks - and they are the masters at deriving profits from clicks. The censoring of Tianamen plus other juicy human rights issues limits the traffic that Google can drum up. Google needs growth to maintain its crazy stock price valuation.</p><p>2)How can Google get to use this censored content? How can Google find an excuse to drop the censorship-easy- claim they have been 'wronged' and position their action as a response. This way Google maintains the moral high ground AND opens up traffic.</p><p>Without any proof either way, we are victims of smoke blowers.</p><p>Aside from the particulars of this case, consider the following analogy- suppose you come across this intelligent population that has until now not seen the internet. The world is intensely curious about this new tribe living on an isolated island that has learned to do things without technology and whose members live to be 200 years old. (For argument's sake, let's call these people the Na'Vi). Google wants to put these people on the net so that the world's insatiatiable curiosity can be quenched (and google can derive billions of clicks on their ads in the process). Should Google be allowed to invade the space of the Na'Vi?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll settle for evidence of the in trusion .
Consider this crazy far out alternative hypothesis : 1 ) Google needs content .
Content is what drives clicks - and they are the masters at deriving profits from clicks .
The censoring of Tianamen plus other juicy human rights issues limits the traffic that Google can drum up .
Google needs growth to maintain its crazy stock price valuation.2 ) How can Google get to use this censored content ?
How can Google find an excuse to drop the censorship-easy- claim they have been 'wronged ' and position their action as a response .
This way Google maintains the moral high ground AND opens up traffic.Without any proof either way , we are victims of smoke blowers.Aside from the particulars of this case , consider the following analogy- suppose you come across this intelligent population that has until now not seen the internet .
The world is intensely curious about this new tribe living on an isolated island that has learned to do things without technology and whose members live to be 200 years old .
( For argument 's sake , let 's call these people the Na'Vi ) .
Google wants to put these people on the net so that the world 's insatiatiable curiosity can be quenched ( and google can derive billions of clicks on their ads in the process ) .
Should Google be allowed to invade the space of the Na'Vi ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll settle for evidence of the in trusion.
Consider this crazy far out alternative hypothesis:1) Google needs content.
Content is what drives clicks - and they are the masters at deriving profits from clicks.
The censoring of Tianamen plus other juicy human rights issues limits the traffic that Google can drum up.
Google needs growth to maintain its crazy stock price valuation.2)How can Google get to use this censored content?
How can Google find an excuse to drop the censorship-easy- claim they have been 'wronged' and position their action as a response.
This way Google maintains the moral high ground AND opens up traffic.Without any proof either way, we are victims of smoke blowers.Aside from the particulars of this case, consider the following analogy- suppose you come across this intelligent population that has until now not seen the internet.
The world is intensely curious about this new tribe living on an isolated island that has learned to do things without technology and whose members live to be 200 years old.
(For argument's sake, let's call these people the Na'Vi).
Google wants to put these people on the net so that the world's insatiatiable curiosity can be quenched (and google can derive billions of clicks on their ads in the process).
Should Google be allowed to invade the space of the Na'Vi?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908294</id>
	<title>If Google retires in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what impact if any, the Android platform will have in China. Could China  prohibits selling handsets that contain android os?</p><p>---<br>Irvin DLP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what impact if any , the Android platform will have in China .
Could China prohibits selling handsets that contain android os ? ---Irvin DLP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what impact if any, the Android platform will have in China.
Could China  prohibits selling handsets that contain android os?---Irvin DLP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908798</id>
	<title>Google is monitoring its own results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you search the following in google.com</p><p>'Aurora' code circulated for years on English sites</p><p>the first result shows 22 related articles, but if you follow the link, it returns nothing.  i guess something is going on.</p><p>http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;q=\%27Aurora\%27+code+circulated+for+years+on+English+sites&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;ncl=dq-hKpjDVjltfwM&amp;ei=FUVfS-uyIpLf8Qb0v\_CHDA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=news\_result&amp;ct=more-results&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQqgIwAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you search the following in google.com'Aurora ' code circulated for years on English sitesthe first result shows 22 related articles , but if you follow the link , it returns nothing .
i guess something is going on.http : //news.google.com/news/story ? hl = en&amp;client = firefox-a&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;q = \ % 27Aurora \ % 27 + code + circulated + for + years + on + English + sites&amp;um = 1&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;ncl = dq-hKpjDVjltfwM&amp;ei = FUVfS-uyIpLf8Qb0v \ _CHDA&amp;sa = X&amp;oi = news \ _result&amp;ct = more-results&amp;resnum = 1&amp;ved = 0CAgQqgIwAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you search the following in google.com'Aurora' code circulated for years on English sitesthe first result shows 22 related articles, but if you follow the link, it returns nothing.
i guess something is going on.http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;q=\%27Aurora\%27+code+circulated+for+years+on+English+sites&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;ncl=dq-hKpjDVjltfwM&amp;ei=FUVfS-uyIpLf8Qb0v\_CHDA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=news\_result&amp;ct=more-results&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAgQqgIwAA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908602</id>
	<title>i'd fully support china</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if the executed fags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the executed fags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the executed fags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911380</id>
	<title>How is this related?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article and Google's claim remain unrelated.</p><p>As mentioned in the article: google has provided no concrete evidence it came from China.</p><p>They do not need to do so. Besides I'm sure that releasing their evidence would endanger national security... as they have got to be one of the greatest suppliers of intelligence (data) to the powers that be. They haven't said as much... but we all know.</p><p>It is highly likely that it came from China... that is not the dispute. The question is whether or not the operation was supported by the Chinese government. I mean the question is: was it a lone hacker? or the Chinese government?</p><p>I don't think the implementation of one algorithm over the other will tell us that.</p><p>Especially since the very observation and recognition of any algorithm would render that algorithm useless as a fingerprint to the initial location of the writing of the source code. ie: if one can find said algorithm during investigation and locate it somewhere in the world (online, book, etc)... then that algorithm is available from anywhere. QED.</p><p>IMO: this article offers no information about the true source/intent of the malware and related gmail attacks.</p><p>It does show how the concept of this article... of trying to find the location of written code using an implemented algorithm... is flawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article and Google 's claim remain unrelated.As mentioned in the article : google has provided no concrete evidence it came from China.They do not need to do so .
Besides I 'm sure that releasing their evidence would endanger national security... as they have got to be one of the greatest suppliers of intelligence ( data ) to the powers that be .
They have n't said as much... but we all know.It is highly likely that it came from China... that is not the dispute .
The question is whether or not the operation was supported by the Chinese government .
I mean the question is : was it a lone hacker ?
or the Chinese government ? I do n't think the implementation of one algorithm over the other will tell us that.Especially since the very observation and recognition of any algorithm would render that algorithm useless as a fingerprint to the initial location of the writing of the source code .
ie : if one can find said algorithm during investigation and locate it somewhere in the world ( online , book , etc ) ... then that algorithm is available from anywhere .
QED.IMO : this article offers no information about the true source/intent of the malware and related gmail attacks.It does show how the concept of this article... of trying to find the location of written code using an implemented algorithm... is flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article and Google's claim remain unrelated.As mentioned in the article: google has provided no concrete evidence it came from China.They do not need to do so.
Besides I'm sure that releasing their evidence would endanger national security... as they have got to be one of the greatest suppliers of intelligence (data) to the powers that be.
They haven't said as much... but we all know.It is highly likely that it came from China... that is not the dispute.
The question is whether or not the operation was supported by the Chinese government.
I mean the question is: was it a lone hacker?
or the Chinese government?I don't think the implementation of one algorithm over the other will tell us that.Especially since the very observation and recognition of any algorithm would render that algorithm useless as a fingerprint to the initial location of the writing of the source code.
ie: if one can find said algorithm during investigation and locate it somewhere in the world (online, book, etc)... then that algorithm is available from anywhere.
QED.IMO: this article offers no information about the true source/intent of the malware and related gmail attacks.It does show how the concept of this article... of trying to find the location of written code using an implemented algorithm... is flawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910780</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264504140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a battle going on on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></div></blockquote><p>More than one.  Note all the right-wing "strike force" members that joined slashdot with user IDs between 1200000 and 1400000.  They post in groups, using multiple accounts, and moderate for effect targeting particular members.  You'll see them here mostly between 3pm and 8pm EST.  You can tell their posts because there are always multiple "I agree" posts replying to them, from both their sockpuppet accounts and as ACs.</p><p>There's even a particular right-wing website that talks about their "strike force" going about various popular websites and forums "fighting liberal bias" by "representing conservative viewpoints in enemy territory".  If you try to post any comment on their site that even slightly disagrees with their viewpoint, they will ban you immediately.</p><p>Don't assume that everyone with whom you have an online conversation is doing so in good faith.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a battle going on on /.More than one .
Note all the right-wing " strike force " members that joined slashdot with user IDs between 1200000 and 1400000 .
They post in groups , using multiple accounts , and moderate for effect targeting particular members .
You 'll see them here mostly between 3pm and 8pm EST .
You can tell their posts because there are always multiple " I agree " posts replying to them , from both their sockpuppet accounts and as ACs.There 's even a particular right-wing website that talks about their " strike force " going about various popular websites and forums " fighting liberal bias " by " representing conservative viewpoints in enemy territory " .
If you try to post any comment on their site that even slightly disagrees with their viewpoint , they will ban you immediately.Do n't assume that everyone with whom you have an online conversation is doing so in good faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a battle going on on /.More than one.
Note all the right-wing "strike force" members that joined slashdot with user IDs between 1200000 and 1400000.
They post in groups, using multiple accounts, and moderate for effect targeting particular members.
You'll see them here mostly between 3pm and 8pm EST.
You can tell their posts because there are always multiple "I agree" posts replying to them, from both their sockpuppet accounts and as ACs.There's even a particular right-wing website that talks about their "strike force" going about various popular websites and forums "fighting liberal bias" by "representing conservative viewpoints in enemy territory".
If you try to post any comment on their site that even slightly disagrees with their viewpoint, they will ban you immediately.Don't assume that everyone with whom you have an online conversation is doing so in good faith.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909616</id>
	<title>Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1264499220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is the second result on Google. Congratulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is the second result on Google .
Congratulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is the second result on Google.
Congratulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah because people never hide things and lie to push their own agendas.</p><p><i>Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.</i></p><p>If I were the US government, these are the kinds of accounts I would access to test cyber warfare tools.<br>Like you aren't saying it was China, I'm not saying the US government was behind it but just that the evidence<br>seems circumstantial and very convenient.  The evidence was also circumstantial and very convenient when used<br>as justification to invade Iraq.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah because people never hide things and lie to push their own agendas.Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.If I were the US government , these are the kinds of accounts I would access to test cyber warfare tools.Like you are n't saying it was China , I 'm not saying the US government was behind it but just that the evidenceseems circumstantial and very convenient .
The evidence was also circumstantial and very convenient when usedas justification to invade Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah because people never hide things and lie to push their own agendas.Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.If I were the US government, these are the kinds of accounts I would access to test cyber warfare tools.Like you aren't saying it was China, I'm not saying the US government was behind it but just that the evidenceseems circumstantial and very convenient.
The evidence was also circumstantial and very convenient when usedas justification to invade Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910674</id>
	<title>Re:"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of o</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264503660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is operating a website. I can reach it from France, I can reach Chinese websites too. The fact Chineses can't reach google.com from their connection has little to do with Google's policy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is operating a website .
I can reach it from France , I can reach Chinese websites too .
The fact Chineses ca n't reach google.com from their connection has little to do with Google 's policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is operating a website.
I can reach it from France, I can reach Chinese websites too.
The fact Chineses can't reach google.com from their connection has little to do with Google's policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912872</id>
	<title>All your Windows Source Code are belong to China</title>
	<author>WebbedWell</author>
	<datestamp>1264519080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I was quietly wondering if the Chinese used their "very privileged" access to Windows Source code to help find the Zero Day in IE. Is that what Balmer meant when he said he was interested in being part of the solution in China?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I was quietly wondering if the Chinese used their " very privileged " access to Windows Source code to help find the Zero Day in IE .
Is that what Balmer meant when he said he was interested in being part of the solution in China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I was quietly wondering if the Chinese used their "very privileged" access to Windows Source code to help find the Zero Day in IE.
Is that what Balmer meant when he said he was interested in being part of the solution in China?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909316</id>
	<title>Just for kicks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say the attack did originate in China, how many attacks originate in Russia, Brazil, hell how many originate in the good ole US of A?</p><p>I understand the argument that says "well it was Chinese Human Rights activists attacked" - but what about the recent Climate researcher email hack?  Did everyone suddenly place blame on the U.S. as it really fought to slow down any sort of real climate agreements?</p><p>Maybe, I'm kind of new to this but were Chinese Human Rights activists even the only ones whose emails were hacked or do we have a number for emails hacked into and what percentage were actually Human rights activists?</p><p>I'm really skeptical about this as it seems as though its being blasted all over media outlets to try to persuade us about something.  This is especially suspicious when you see what has been going on recently with U.S. China relations.</p><p>Sorry these things are starting to bug me, its cool for France and Britain to try to pass laws to keep Muslim women from wearing Burqas, but we are all up in arms when Chinese people are kept from watching American pr0n and advertisements.</p><p>Insanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say the attack did originate in China , how many attacks originate in Russia , Brazil , hell how many originate in the good ole US of A ? I understand the argument that says " well it was Chinese Human Rights activists attacked " - but what about the recent Climate researcher email hack ?
Did everyone suddenly place blame on the U.S. as it really fought to slow down any sort of real climate agreements ? Maybe , I 'm kind of new to this but were Chinese Human Rights activists even the only ones whose emails were hacked or do we have a number for emails hacked into and what percentage were actually Human rights activists ? I 'm really skeptical about this as it seems as though its being blasted all over media outlets to try to persuade us about something .
This is especially suspicious when you see what has been going on recently with U.S. China relations.Sorry these things are starting to bug me , its cool for France and Britain to try to pass laws to keep Muslim women from wearing Burqas , but we are all up in arms when Chinese people are kept from watching American pr0n and advertisements.Insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say the attack did originate in China, how many attacks originate in Russia, Brazil, hell how many originate in the good ole US of A?I understand the argument that says "well it was Chinese Human Rights activists attacked" - but what about the recent Climate researcher email hack?
Did everyone suddenly place blame on the U.S. as it really fought to slow down any sort of real climate agreements?Maybe, I'm kind of new to this but were Chinese Human Rights activists even the only ones whose emails were hacked or do we have a number for emails hacked into and what percentage were actually Human rights activists?I'm really skeptical about this as it seems as though its being blasted all over media outlets to try to persuade us about something.
This is especially suspicious when you see what has been going on recently with U.S. China relations.Sorry these things are starting to bug me, its cool for France and Britain to try to pass laws to keep Muslim women from wearing Burqas, but we are all up in arms when Chinese people are kept from watching American pr0n and advertisements.Insanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909586</id>
	<title>Re:imagine that...</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1264499100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know right. Why should anyone worry about a country that loathes personal freedoms? They just want to be left alone after all. Poor old China, always getting the shaft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know right .
Why should anyone worry about a country that loathes personal freedoms ?
They just want to be left alone after all .
Poor old China , always getting the shaft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know right.
Why should anyone worry about a country that loathes personal freedoms?
They just want to be left alone after all.
Poor old China, always getting the shaft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908444</id>
	<title>The Chinese code matches \_exactly\_</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1264536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has been reverse engineering quite a bit of software recently, I can tell you that the assembly code from the attack and the Chinese version of the algorithm match completely. In other words, the output looks like exactly what an (optimizing) compiler would've produced given that source code. Note the operations performed inside the loop and the use of stack allocation for the table (and therefore the required initialization every time the function is called).</p><p>As far as I can see, none of the English versions are similar. Sure, they implement the same <b>algorithm</b>, but the chinese <b>implementation</b> matches the attack code, not just the algorithm,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has been reverse engineering quite a bit of software recently , I can tell you that the assembly code from the attack and the Chinese version of the algorithm match completely .
In other words , the output looks like exactly what an ( optimizing ) compiler would 've produced given that source code .
Note the operations performed inside the loop and the use of stack allocation for the table ( and therefore the required initialization every time the function is called ) .As far as I can see , none of the English versions are similar .
Sure , they implement the same algorithm , but the chinese implementation matches the attack code , not just the algorithm,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has been reverse engineering quite a bit of software recently, I can tell you that the assembly code from the attack and the Chinese version of the algorithm match completely.
In other words, the output looks like exactly what an (optimizing) compiler would've produced given that source code.
Note the operations performed inside the loop and the use of stack allocation for the table (and therefore the required initialization every time the function is called).As far as I can see, none of the English versions are similar.
Sure, they implement the same algorithm, but the chinese implementation matches the attack code, not just the algorithm,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908408</id>
	<title>weakened evidence... of what?</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1264536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidence weakens that Joe Stewart's analysis shows that the CRC algorithm used in the attack was developed by Chinese programmers.</p><p>As other folks have pointed out, this is NOT the basis of Google's or others' assessments that the attacks originated from within mainland China, and in no way does it weaken the evidence regarding the origin of the attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidence weakens that Joe Stewart 's analysis shows that the CRC algorithm used in the attack was developed by Chinese programmers.As other folks have pointed out , this is NOT the basis of Google 's or others ' assessments that the attacks originated from within mainland China , and in no way does it weaken the evidence regarding the origin of the attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidence weakens that Joe Stewart's analysis shows that the CRC algorithm used in the attack was developed by Chinese programmers.As other folks have pointed out, this is NOT the basis of Google's or others' assessments that the attacks originated from within mainland China, and in no way does it weaken the evidence regarding the origin of the attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909424</id>
	<title>GuaGua Catatsa!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mikono tepito cartelopo munaca tetasky jukiolli jutmoi deyiuma!!!! Ticate!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mikono tepito cartelopo munaca tetasky jukiolli jutmoi deyiuma ! ! ! !
Ticate ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mikono tepito cartelopo munaca tetasky jukiolli jutmoi deyiuma!!!!
Ticate!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30917908</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1264610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; If a secret service wants someone dead, the guy just commits suicide.<br><br>That one seems like a botched job to me. Blunt gardening knife? And they have to make the results of the post mortem secret for 70 years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If a secret service wants someone dead , the guy just commits suicide.That one seems like a botched job to me .
Blunt gardening knife ?
And they have to make the results of the post mortem secret for 70 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If a secret service wants someone dead, the guy just commits suicide.That one seems like a botched job to me.
Blunt gardening knife?
And they have to make the results of the post mortem secret for 70 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909016</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264496640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot?</p></div><p>I've noticed this too.  I try to be objective about Chinese and American relations.  We're definitely frienemies, but lately I've noticed subtle push-back from the pro-China folks.</p><p>Like my comment in a previous post got modded to +4 insightful but then ended back down to +2:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <br>Google should also check where all their laptops were manufactured. And make sure each BIOS is clean.</p> </div><p>There's a battle going on on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot ? I 've noticed this too .
I try to be objective about Chinese and American relations .
We 're definitely frienemies , but lately I 've noticed subtle push-back from the pro-China folks.Like my comment in a previous post got modded to + 4 insightful but then ended back down to + 2 : Google should also check where all their laptops were manufactured .
And make sure each BIOS is clean .
There 's a battle going on on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot?I've noticed this too.
I try to be objective about Chinese and American relations.
We're definitely frienemies, but lately I've noticed subtle push-back from the pro-China folks.Like my comment in a previous post got modded to +4 insightful but then ended back down to +2: Google should also check where all their laptops were manufactured.
And make sure each BIOS is clean.
There's a battle going on on /.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908792</id>
	<title>OK</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1264538760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What other nation or group has motivation for hacking into human rights organizations for Tibet and China? Who else would see that as a threat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What other nation or group has motivation for hacking into human rights organizations for Tibet and China ?
Who else would see that as a threat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other nation or group has motivation for hacking into human rights organizations for Tibet and China?
Who else would see that as a threat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908624</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greetings! We are conducting <a href="http://www.online-sport-betting.org/" title="online-sport-betting.org" rel="nofollow">bet on sports online</a> [online-sport-betting.org] to all who are interested in playing games. Visit our site for more information and this online game is free for all! So what are you waiting for? Play now and enjoy our site! Happy gaming!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greetings !
We are conducting bet on sports online [ online-sport-betting.org ] to all who are interested in playing games .
Visit our site for more information and this online game is free for all !
So what are you waiting for ?
Play now and enjoy our site !
Happy gaming !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greetings!
We are conducting bet on sports online [online-sport-betting.org] to all who are interested in playing games.
Visit our site for more information and this online game is free for all!
So what are you waiting for?
Play now and enjoy our site!
Happy gaming!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913986</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chinese...</title>
	<author>jdc18</author>
	<datestamp>1264531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact is, if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google, they wouldn't make it so damn obvious.  Secondly, after suspicion is squarely put on China, and China vehemently denies it, there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours.  Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish?</p></div><p>Well, first of all like you said the Chinese government is completely authoritarian, they have a feeling of self entitlement that everyone has to bow to them.  Will they get any commerce restriction for these?   They already bug the dalai lama office once.  Besides it is China, they are not known for their efficiency.  And the attack was really well plan and pulled a lot of resources.
The attacks were not that obvious, it took them like a month and many companies to analyse the data.  Besides google is gambling a big market, 300 million internet users. Google had a lot of plans for china, like the one for their phone, that they postponed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google , they would n't make it so damn obvious .
Secondly , after suspicion is squarely put on China , and China vehemently denies it , there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours .
Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish ? Well , first of all like you said the Chinese government is completely authoritarian , they have a feeling of self entitlement that everyone has to bow to them .
Will they get any commerce restriction for these ?
They already bug the dalai lama office once .
Besides it is China , they are not known for their efficiency .
And the attack was really well plan and pulled a lot of resources .
The attacks were not that obvious , it took them like a month and many companies to analyse the data .
Besides google is gambling a big market , 300 million internet users .
Google had a lot of plans for china , like the one for their phone , that they postponed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google, they wouldn't make it so damn obvious.
Secondly, after suspicion is squarely put on China, and China vehemently denies it, there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours.
Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish?Well, first of all like you said the Chinese government is completely authoritarian, they have a feeling of self entitlement that everyone has to bow to them.
Will they get any commerce restriction for these?
They already bug the dalai lama office once.
Besides it is China, they are not known for their efficiency.
And the attack was really well plan and pulled a lot of resources.
The attacks were not that obvious, it took them like a month and many companies to analyse the data.
Besides google is gambling a big market, 300 million internet users.
Google had a lot of plans for china, like the one for their phone, that they postponed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</id>
	<title>F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot?</p><p>We getting astro-turfed by Red China?</p><p>They claimed, of course they didn't do it, and seem to never mention by name the laws that Google must abide by.</p><p>Screw them.</p><p>How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot ? We getting astro-turfed by Red China ? They claimed , of course they did n't do it , and seem to never mention by name the laws that Google must abide by.Screw them.How do you say " Propaganda " in Chinese ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot?We getting astro-turfed by Red China?They claimed, of course they didn't do it, and seem to never mention by name the laws that Google must abide by.Screw them.How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911520</id>
	<title>It's "deterrent"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264508520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck! I just saw "spys" in another topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck !
I just saw " spys " in another topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck!
I just saw "spys" in another topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908904</id>
	<title>OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was f'n China. The same fingerprint has been left all over US tech companies that DO point back to China. They got busted with their hands in the cookie jar and now will do anything to cover it up. Give us all a break you commie bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was f'n China .
The same fingerprint has been left all over US tech companies that DO point back to China .
They got busted with their hands in the cookie jar and now will do anything to cover it up .
Give us all a break you commie bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was f'n China.
The same fingerprint has been left all over US tech companies that DO point back to China.
They got busted with their hands in the cookie jar and now will do anything to cover it up.
Give us all a break you commie bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908686</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hackers weren't the most intelligent.  If they would have properly encrypted their code (hell, even a ROT-13), then these groups trying to decipher their algorithms would be breaking the DCMA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hackers were n't the most intelligent .
If they would have properly encrypted their code ( hell , even a ROT-13 ) , then these groups trying to decipher their algorithms would be breaking the DCMA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hackers weren't the most intelligent.
If they would have properly encrypted their code (hell, even a ROT-13), then these groups trying to decipher their algorithms would be breaking the DCMA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909122</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264497060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has nothing to do with China.  China is just the cheapest manufacturer.  We could replace 'China' with any other developing nation that has a low cost of business and labor.  It might raise our prices marginally, but not that much.  Ultimately, China is doomed as the primary exporter of goods to the US... why?  Because the cost of global transportation is going to rise dramatically in the future.  It will be far cheaper to manufacture in Mexico and drive the goods a few hundred miles into the US than it will be to manufacture in China and ship six thousand miles to the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with China .
China is just the cheapest manufacturer .
We could replace 'China ' with any other developing nation that has a low cost of business and labor .
It might raise our prices marginally , but not that much .
Ultimately , China is doomed as the primary exporter of goods to the US... why ? Because the cost of global transportation is going to rise dramatically in the future .
It will be far cheaper to manufacture in Mexico and drive the goods a few hundred miles into the US than it will be to manufacture in China and ship six thousand miles to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with China.
China is just the cheapest manufacturer.
We could replace 'China' with any other developing nation that has a low cost of business and labor.
It might raise our prices marginally, but not that much.
Ultimately, China is doomed as the primary exporter of goods to the US... why?  Because the cost of global transportation is going to rise dramatically in the future.
It will be far cheaper to manufacture in Mexico and drive the goods a few hundred miles into the US than it will be to manufacture in China and ship six thousand miles to the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914774</id>
	<title>Blackmailing a nation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Google and I like Google. But no company should be able or allowed to blackmail a country. Google has only been in China for 4 years - and if they dont like it than bai-bai.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Google and I like Google .
But no company should be able or allowed to blackmail a country .
Google has only been in China for 4 years - and if they dont like it than bai-bai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Google and I like Google.
But no company should be able or allowed to blackmail a country.
Google has only been in China for 4 years - and if they dont like it than bai-bai.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910044</id>
	<title>You succeeded</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1264501080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They likely have far more pressing things on hand, like getting enough money to live off of.</p><p>Further, if they prove it can be done by disorganized, preoccupied rabble, then sooner or later they might get captured by Chinese government officials and forced to reveal their methods, at which point other "human rights groups in China" would do "copycat attacks", purely, of course, to try to pin the blame on China itself, who is "innocent".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They likely have far more pressing things on hand , like getting enough money to live off of.Further , if they prove it can be done by disorganized , preoccupied rabble , then sooner or later they might get captured by Chinese government officials and forced to reveal their methods , at which point other " human rights groups in China " would do " copycat attacks " , purely , of course , to try to pin the blame on China itself , who is " innocent " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They likely have far more pressing things on hand, like getting enough money to live off of.Further, if they prove it can be done by disorganized, preoccupied rabble, then sooner or later they might get captured by Chinese government officials and forced to reveal their methods, at which point other "human rights groups in China" would do "copycat attacks", purely, of course, to try to pin the blame on China itself, who is "innocent".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908588</id>
	<title>Digital DNA?</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1264537740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How hard is that?  Parse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/log/secure, do a lookup and see where the attacks are coming from.</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>121.172.227.78 KR KORNET, Namdong-gu, Incheon<br>218.200.163.148 CN China Mobile Communications<br>222.173.194.10 CN CHINANET SHANDONG PROVINCE NETWORK<br>203.250.137.143 KR kreonet.net<br>209.151.248.213 US Cyberverse, Los Angeles Colocation and Datacenter<br>190.144.126.227 CO TELMEXLA.NET.CO, Bogota<br>203.134.223.248 IN HFCL INFOTEL, Punjab<br>194.246.101.52 FR Transnode</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Wow.  No Brazil today. That's odd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is that ?
Parse /var/log/secure , do a lookup and see where the attacks are coming from .
121.172.227.78 KR KORNET , Namdong-gu , Incheon218.200.163.148 CN China Mobile Communications222.173.194.10 CN CHINANET SHANDONG PROVINCE NETWORK203.250.137.143 KR kreonet.net209.151.248.213 US Cyberverse , Los Angeles Colocation and Datacenter190.144.126.227 CO TELMEXLA.NET.CO , Bogota203.134.223.248 IN HFCL INFOTEL , Punjab194.246.101.52 FR Transnode Wow .
No Brazil today .
That 's odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is that?
Parse /var/log/secure, do a lookup and see where the attacks are coming from.
121.172.227.78 KR KORNET, Namdong-gu, Incheon218.200.163.148 CN China Mobile Communications222.173.194.10 CN CHINANET SHANDONG PROVINCE NETWORK203.250.137.143 KR kreonet.net209.151.248.213 US Cyberverse, Los Angeles Colocation and Datacenter190.144.126.227 CO TELMEXLA.NET.CO, Bogota203.134.223.248 IN HFCL INFOTEL, Punjab194.246.101.52 FR Transnode Wow.
No Brazil today.
That's odd.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908942</id>
	<title>Re:IP Addresses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264539420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The smoking gun I'd heard about was the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">IP Addresses</a> [arstechnica.com] of the command servers, not this CRC algorithm.</p><p>While these machines <i>could</i> be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't. infrastructure they're even <i>less</i> likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.</p></div><p>Why all the harping on different flavors of Red Chinese?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The smoking gun I 'd heard about was the IP Addresses [ arstechnica.com ] of the command servers , not this CRC algorithm.While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't .
infrastructure they 're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.Why all the harping on different flavors of Red Chinese ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smoking gun I'd heard about was the IP Addresses [arstechnica.com] of the command servers, not this CRC algorithm.While these machines could be rouge agents in the Chinese Gov't.
infrastructure they're even less likely to admit a security compromise that than espionage.Why all the harping on different flavors of Red Chinese?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1264496760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beware, the chinese astroturfers also have modpoints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beware , the chinese astroturfers also have modpoints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beware, the chinese astroturfers also have modpoints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914750</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Meumeu</author>
	<datestamp>1264587120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World, we should be damn sure of what we are doing. </p></div><p>And how exactly would accusing China damage the relation between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal)" title="wikipedia.org">the EU and the US</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World , we should be damn sure of what we are doing .
And how exactly would accusing China damage the relation between the EU and the US [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When making accusations that can damage the relations of the two largest economies in the World, we should be damn sure of what we are doing.
And how exactly would accusing China damage the relation between the EU and the US [wikipedia.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908302</id>
	<title>digital DNA is years old</title>
	<author>walkoff</author>
	<datestamp>1264536600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were using and describing digital DNA in the mid to late 80s although the terminology used was slightly different as we<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/stole/ the term FIST from ham radio to use for it. it's actually an interesting technique although we weren't that sophisticated as we only looked at command streams and lingustics to identify country of origin and style of attack and group M.O. rather than pin pointing the actual attacker.

It was actually used successfully in a few virus and trojan incidents and I stil have at least a partial copy of the NARK database I collated at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were using and describing digital DNA in the mid to late 80s although the terminology used was slightly different as we /stole/ the term FIST from ham radio to use for it .
it 's actually an interesting technique although we were n't that sophisticated as we only looked at command streams and lingustics to identify country of origin and style of attack and group M.O .
rather than pin pointing the actual attacker .
It was actually used successfully in a few virus and trojan incidents and I stil have at least a partial copy of the NARK database I collated at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were using and describing digital DNA in the mid to late 80s although the terminology used was slightly different as we /stole/ the term FIST from ham radio to use for it.
it's actually an interesting technique although we weren't that sophisticated as we only looked at command streams and lingustics to identify country of origin and style of attack and group M.O.
rather than pin pointing the actual attacker.
It was actually used successfully in a few virus and trojan incidents and I stil have at least a partial copy of the NARK database I collated at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910254</id>
	<title>Even if it was a Chinese group</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1264501920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't mean that its the Chinese government...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't mean that its the Chinese government.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't mean that its the Chinese government...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316</id>
	<title>Let's Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... Throwing this out there...</p><p>
&nbsp; hypothetically could it have been the Human Rights groups in China?</p><p>Yes it would be an odd move as it could put themselves and their friends in quite a bit of danger, but it could also be high reward, if other countries fall for it and do something about it (if they could)</p><p>I know it's bad to think about the victim as possible being the one who set things up, but from time to time we need to at least explore the idea, or you will get played repeatedly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... Throwing this out there.. .   hypothetically could it have been the Human Rights groups in China ? Yes it would be an odd move as it could put themselves and their friends in quite a bit of danger , but it could also be high reward , if other countries fall for it and do something about it ( if they could ) I know it 's bad to think about the victim as possible being the one who set things up , but from time to time we need to at least explore the idea , or you will get played repeatedly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... Throwing this out there...
  hypothetically could it have been the Human Rights groups in China?Yes it would be an odd move as it could put themselves and their friends in quite a bit of danger, but it could also be high reward, if other countries fall for it and do something about it (if they could)I know it's bad to think about the victim as possible being the one who set things up, but from time to time we need to at least explore the idea, or you will get played repeatedly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908578</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you'd be doing it using command and control servers inside China, right? Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'd be doing it using command and control servers inside China , right ?
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'd be doing it using command and control servers inside China, right?
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264536300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of those situations like when the feds deal with the mob.  You know it has to be them, there is no way there isn't...but without "proof", all you have are unsubstantiated claims.</p><p>Sometimes the justice system prevails...and sometimes it gets in its own way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those situations like when the feds deal with the mob .
You know it has to be them , there is no way there is n't...but without " proof " , all you have are unsubstantiated claims.Sometimes the justice system prevails...and sometimes it gets in its own way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those situations like when the feds deal with the mob.
You know it has to be them, there is no way there isn't...but without "proof", all you have are unsubstantiated claims.Sometimes the justice system prevails...and sometimes it gets in its own way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908744</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1264538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if i were to hack google and wanted to distract from myself, I would have done the same. I think having parts of the source code of Google, Symantec, Adobe, Juniper and others is worth so much, it's hard to grasp</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if i were to hack google and wanted to distract from myself , I would have done the same .
I think having parts of the source code of Google , Symantec , Adobe , Juniper and others is worth so much , it 's hard to grasp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if i were to hack google and wanted to distract from myself, I would have done the same.
I think having parts of the source code of Google, Symantec, Adobe, Juniper and others is worth so much, it's hard to grasp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915134</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1264592880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is the possibility that the Chinese have hacked the mod-point generator and given their astroturfers oodles of points. The only way to settle this is to give everyone gobs of points and let the war begin. "We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in bed,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." well, I don't channel Winston Churchill very well but he certainly not stand for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is the possibility that the Chinese have hacked the mod-point generator and given their astroturfers oodles of points .
The only way to settle this is to give everyone gobs of points and let the war begin .
" We shall fight them on the beaches , we shall fight them in bed , ... " well , I do n't channel Winston Churchill very well but he certainly not stand for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is the possibility that the Chinese have hacked the mod-point generator and given their astroturfers oodles of points.
The only way to settle this is to give everyone gobs of points and let the war begin.
"We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in bed, ..." well, I don't channel Winston Churchill very well but he certainly not stand for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909558</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Be Foolish</title>
	<author>assassinator42</author>
	<datestamp>1264499040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It COULD be Baidu trying to eliminate competition. Although the fact that their domain was hacked makes that theory very unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It COULD be Baidu trying to eliminate competition .
Although the fact that their domain was hacked makes that theory very unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It COULD be Baidu trying to eliminate competition.
Although the fact that their domain was hacked makes that theory very unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909836</id>
	<title>2 unrelated events?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264500120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When i saw the 1st google complaint, i tought that was weird that for one side you have high tech attacks (i.e. the one to steal IP from google, hacking into inside computers using IE6/flash/acrobat/whatever vulnerabilities) and the other was somewhat low tech, social engineering or just shopping into black market to infiltrate into the mail accounts of human rights advocates in China.

<p>If you put both together, assuming that have the same source, could point to someone big enough to be backed by China government, but if were unrelated could be "normal", as in one from hacking groups and other from people intruding in mass amounts of accounts or just "fans" of chinese politics (wonder how much westerns tried to hack or DoS i.e. irani sites when US government/media started to turn on the heat on them). Still could have been sponsored by the chinese government, just that aren't the only suspect there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When i saw the 1st google complaint , i tought that was weird that for one side you have high tech attacks ( i.e .
the one to steal IP from google , hacking into inside computers using IE6/flash/acrobat/whatever vulnerabilities ) and the other was somewhat low tech , social engineering or just shopping into black market to infiltrate into the mail accounts of human rights advocates in China .
If you put both together , assuming that have the same source , could point to someone big enough to be backed by China government , but if were unrelated could be " normal " , as in one from hacking groups and other from people intruding in mass amounts of accounts or just " fans " of chinese politics ( wonder how much westerns tried to hack or DoS i.e .
irani sites when US government/media started to turn on the heat on them ) .
Still could have been sponsored by the chinese government , just that are n't the only suspect there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i saw the 1st google complaint, i tought that was weird that for one side you have high tech attacks (i.e.
the one to steal IP from google, hacking into inside computers using IE6/flash/acrobat/whatever vulnerabilities) and the other was somewhat low tech, social engineering or just shopping into black market to infiltrate into the mail accounts of human rights advocates in China.
If you put both together, assuming that have the same source, could point to someone big enough to be backed by China government, but if were unrelated could be "normal", as in one from hacking groups and other from people intruding in mass amounts of accounts or just "fans" of chinese politics (wonder how much westerns tried to hack or DoS i.e.
irani sites when US government/media started to turn on the heat on them).
Still could have been sponsored by the chinese government, just that aren't the only suspect there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912858</id>
	<title>Re:F-China</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1264518960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe those are called taikoturfers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe those are called taikoturfers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe those are called taikoturfers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30917908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1818231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30917908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30912858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30910502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30914774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30911032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30913986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1818231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30908496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30909586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1818231.30915162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
