<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_1431214</id>
	<title>FCC's Net Neutrality Plan Blocks BitTorrent</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264689300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>master\_p writes <i>"The FCC's formally issued draft net neutrality regulations have <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/net-neutrality-plan-would-permit-blocking-bittorrent">a huge copyright loophole in them</a>; a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007 &mdash; simply by claiming that it was 'reasonable network management' intended to 'prevent the unlawful transfer of content.' The new proposed net neutrality regulations would allow the same practices that net neutrality was first invoked to prevent, even if these ISP practices end up inflicting collateral damage on perfectly lawful content and activities."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>master \ _p writes " The FCC 's formally issued draft net neutrality regulations have a huge copyright loophole in them ; a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007    simply by claiming that it was 'reasonable network management ' intended to 'prevent the unlawful transfer of content .
' The new proposed net neutrality regulations would allow the same practices that net neutrality was first invoked to prevent , even if these ISP practices end up inflicting collateral damage on perfectly lawful content and activities .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>master\_p writes "The FCC's formally issued draft net neutrality regulations have a huge copyright loophole in them; a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007 — simply by claiming that it was 'reasonable network management' intended to 'prevent the unlawful transfer of content.
' The new proposed net neutrality regulations would allow the same practices that net neutrality was first invoked to prevent, even if these ISP practices end up inflicting collateral damage on perfectly lawful content and activities.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935982</id>
	<title>Re:Forget bit torrent.</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP is correct. We let things go this direction, we may as well all start learning to speak Mandarin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP is correct .
We let things go this direction , we may as well all start learning to speak Mandarin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP is correct.
We let things go this direction, we may as well all start learning to speak Mandarin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933158</id>
	<title>Re:We told you.</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1264693920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't that it's government-mandated, the problem is that it's mandated by a government that doesn't fear the voters and will gladly let itself be bought by wealthy special interest groups.</p><p>Unfortunately more and more governments are adopting this view of the world...</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that it 's government-mandated , the problem is that it 's mandated by a government that does n't fear the voters and will gladly let itself be bought by wealthy special interest groups.Unfortunately more and more governments are adopting this view of the world.../Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't that it's government-mandated, the problem is that it's mandated by a government that doesn't fear the voters and will gladly let itself be bought by wealthy special interest groups.Unfortunately more and more governments are adopting this view of the world.../Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934834</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian has DebTorrent for peer to peer package distribution<br>http://wiki.debian.org/DebTorrent<br>I used to use it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian has DebTorrent for peer to peer package distributionhttp : //wiki.debian.org/DebTorrentI used to use it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian has DebTorrent for peer to peer package distributionhttp://wiki.debian.org/DebTorrentI used to use it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30944502</id>
	<title>Re:I told you so</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264688760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?"</p><p>That's a stupid question to ask since it isn't about "handling control of the internet over to the government".  Maybe next time you'll be educated enough not to ask that question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every time a net neutrality article comes up , I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today , as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right ?
" That 's a stupid question to ask since it is n't about " handling control of the internet over to the government " .
Maybe next time you 'll be educated enough not to ask that question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?
"That's a stupid question to ask since it isn't about "handling control of the internet over to the government".
Maybe next time you'll be educated enough not to ask that question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937632</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its about handing it over to a government tha has been and is controlled by corporate hollywood<br>a non lobbied democraic govt would care about its people and not a few lil twitty actors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its about handing it over to a government tha has been and is controlled by corporate hollywooda non lobbied democraic govt would care about its people and not a few lil twitty actors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its about handing it over to a government tha has been and is controlled by corporate hollywooda non lobbied democraic govt would care about its people and not a few lil twitty actors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933328</id>
	<title>Re:We told you.</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1264694700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have the right to block all torrents if they pleased. They are privat companies with very few regulations. Companies already block copyright materials via DMCA take down requests.  These guidelines change nothing, except put in some sane rules regarding the payola tiered web companies like Comcast want to put in.  Im sure your anti-government screed is very convincing to young republicans, I mean libertarians, but this all looks like a lot of fearmongering from the eff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have the right to block all torrents if they pleased .
They are privat companies with very few regulations .
Companies already block copyright materials via DMCA take down requests .
These guidelines change nothing , except put in some sane rules regarding the payola tiered web companies like Comcast want to put in .
Im sure your anti-government screed is very convincing to young republicans , I mean libertarians , but this all looks like a lot of fearmongering from the eff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have the right to block all torrents if they pleased.
They are privat companies with very few regulations.
Companies already block copyright materials via DMCA take down requests.
These guidelines change nothing, except put in some sane rules regarding the payola tiered web companies like Comcast want to put in.
Im sure your anti-government screed is very convincing to young republicans, I mean libertarians, but this all looks like a lot of fearmongering from the eff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934666</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1264699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Perhaps that is a good thing, even if it is inconvenient for now: the more uniform and indistinguishable the traffic becomes, the harder can it be censored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed , while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic .
Perhaps that is a good thing , even if it is inconvenient for now : the more uniform and indistinguishable the traffic becomes , the harder can it be censored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.
Perhaps that is a good thing, even if it is inconvenient for now: the more uniform and indistinguishable the traffic becomes, the harder can it be censored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be incorrect. Consider many of the major linux distros. They distribute via bit torrent. It makes things a lot faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be incorrect .
Consider many of the major linux distros .
They distribute via bit torrent .
It makes things a lot faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be incorrect.
Consider many of the major linux distros.
They distribute via bit torrent.
It makes things a lot faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933470</id>
	<title>Re:We told you.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264695420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The voters are the ones that vote in the politician in the first place.  The "blame big business" schtick is just an easy way for voters to excuse their own ignorance and poor voting behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The voters are the ones that vote in the politician in the first place .
The " blame big business " schtick is just an easy way for voters to excuse their own ignorance and poor voting behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The voters are the ones that vote in the politician in the first place.
The "blame big business" schtick is just an easy way for voters to excuse their own ignorance and poor voting behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a guess, the entity with the largest transfer of legal BitTorrent feeds is Blizzard software; it's the primary distribution method for World of Warcraft updates.</p><p>In fact, unless the user is knowledgeable, they won't know any other way to get said updates.  The game's launcher automatically detects when a new version of the game is available (because it's an MMORPG, the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated), and launches Blizzard's BitTorrent downloader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a guess , the entity with the largest transfer of legal BitTorrent feeds is Blizzard software ; it 's the primary distribution method for World of Warcraft updates.In fact , unless the user is knowledgeable , they wo n't know any other way to get said updates .
The game 's launcher automatically detects when a new version of the game is available ( because it 's an MMORPG , the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated ) , and launches Blizzard 's BitTorrent downloader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a guess, the entity with the largest transfer of legal BitTorrent feeds is Blizzard software; it's the primary distribution method for World of Warcraft updates.In fact, unless the user is knowledgeable, they won't know any other way to get said updates.
The game's launcher automatically detects when a new version of the game is available (because it's an MMORPG, the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated), and launches Blizzard's BitTorrent downloader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933286</id>
	<title>Re:We told you.</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1264694460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MindlessAutomata, that is an excellent point.  Break up the ISP oligarchy and return control to the consumer and you need not involve government.  Although, government will become involved because the telecom weenies will start crying unfair competition.  They will start spewing their hypocritical rhetoric.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MindlessAutomata , that is an excellent point .
Break up the ISP oligarchy and return control to the consumer and you need not involve government .
Although , government will become involved because the telecom weenies will start crying unfair competition .
They will start spewing their hypocritical rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MindlessAutomata, that is an excellent point.
Break up the ISP oligarchy and return control to the consumer and you need not involve government.
Although, government will become involved because the telecom weenies will start crying unfair competition.
They will start spewing their hypocritical rhetoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933262</id>
	<title>Question for you...</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1264694340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think you'll get more of a response if you write your senator or the CEOs of Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon?</p><p>If there were no regulation against monopolies, internet service would almost certainly be in the hands of one. They wouldn't ask anyone for permission to block any protocol, they would just do it. (CEO Bob wants another 10\% to the bottom line? No problem... shut down port 25 and double the price of mail storage.) Not to mention the fact that without serious investment by DARPA, the internet may not have existed in the first place.</p><p>When a functioning democracy is in place, you can affect change with your vote, and it barely costs you anything except your time. That's supposed to be the equalizer for corporate power, since you're not going to have as much money as anyone in the Fortune 10,000 (if there is such a thing). When there's not even a mechanism in place to reign in business shenanigans, they just have to hold back enough so there aren't riots. Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.</p><p>We are supposed to be a constitutional republic, which holds everyone equal in the eyes of the law, which should be written by the society as a whole -- not just the rich and powerful. This is specifically due to the abuses of the monarchies and churches and companies that dominated society at the time of our founding, and continue today. Once again, the answer to a non-functioning democracy is a functioning one. Throwing away the government check to corporate power won't do anyone a damn bit of good, except for the people who own the corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think you 'll get more of a response if you write your senator or the CEOs of Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon ? If there were no regulation against monopolies , internet service would almost certainly be in the hands of one .
They would n't ask anyone for permission to block any protocol , they would just do it .
( CEO Bob wants another 10 \ % to the bottom line ?
No problem... shut down port 25 and double the price of mail storage .
) Not to mention the fact that without serious investment by DARPA , the internet may not have existed in the first place.When a functioning democracy is in place , you can affect change with your vote , and it barely costs you anything except your time .
That 's supposed to be the equalizer for corporate power , since you 're not going to have as much money as anyone in the Fortune 10,000 ( if there is such a thing ) .
When there 's not even a mechanism in place to reign in business shenanigans , they just have to hold back enough so there are n't riots .
Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.We are supposed to be a constitutional republic , which holds everyone equal in the eyes of the law , which should be written by the society as a whole -- not just the rich and powerful .
This is specifically due to the abuses of the monarchies and churches and companies that dominated society at the time of our founding , and continue today .
Once again , the answer to a non-functioning democracy is a functioning one .
Throwing away the government check to corporate power wo n't do anyone a damn bit of good , except for the people who own the corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think you'll get more of a response if you write your senator or the CEOs of Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon?If there were no regulation against monopolies, internet service would almost certainly be in the hands of one.
They wouldn't ask anyone for permission to block any protocol, they would just do it.
(CEO Bob wants another 10\% to the bottom line?
No problem... shut down port 25 and double the price of mail storage.
) Not to mention the fact that without serious investment by DARPA, the internet may not have existed in the first place.When a functioning democracy is in place, you can affect change with your vote, and it barely costs you anything except your time.
That's supposed to be the equalizer for corporate power, since you're not going to have as much money as anyone in the Fortune 10,000 (if there is such a thing).
When there's not even a mechanism in place to reign in business shenanigans, they just have to hold back enough so there aren't riots.
Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.We are supposed to be a constitutional republic, which holds everyone equal in the eyes of the law, which should be written by the society as a whole -- not just the rich and powerful.
This is specifically due to the abuses of the monarchies and churches and companies that dominated society at the time of our founding, and continue today.
Once again, the answer to a non-functioning democracy is a functioning one.
Throwing away the government check to corporate power won't do anyone a damn bit of good, except for the people who own the corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937792</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get a VPS with unlimited data transfer for $25/month. Establish a VPN connection and route everything through it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get a VPS with unlimited data transfer for $ 25/month .
Establish a VPN connection and route everything through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get a VPS with unlimited data transfer for $25/month.
Establish a VPN connection and route everything through it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30940332</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1264670940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where the fundamental problem comes in:  It is completely obvious that people need to be allowed to block spam and botnets, but it's extremely hard to offer a legally sane definition of the traffic that you should be allowed to block contrasted with the traffic you should not be allowed to block.  (It gets weirder still when you consider mere traffic-prioritization questions.)</p><p>I don't think there's any solution short of implementing the Evil Bit.  (All malicious traffic must set the Evil Bit in its TCP headers.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the fundamental problem comes in : It is completely obvious that people need to be allowed to block spam and botnets , but it 's extremely hard to offer a legally sane definition of the traffic that you should be allowed to block contrasted with the traffic you should not be allowed to block .
( It gets weirder still when you consider mere traffic-prioritization questions .
) I do n't think there 's any solution short of implementing the Evil Bit .
( All malicious traffic must set the Evil Bit in its TCP headers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where the fundamental problem comes in:  It is completely obvious that people need to be allowed to block spam and botnets, but it's extremely hard to offer a legally sane definition of the traffic that you should be allowed to block contrasted with the traffic you should not be allowed to block.
(It gets weirder still when you consider mere traffic-prioritization questions.
)I don't think there's any solution short of implementing the Evil Bit.
(All malicious traffic must set the Evil Bit in its TCP headers.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932966</id>
	<title>Ah! Neutrality to NEUTRILIZE... Now I get it.</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1264693080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next step would be get Neutered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next step would be get Neutered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next step would be get Neutered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30939084</id>
	<title>Re:We told you.</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264710420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I believe they have a contract with me to provide me internet service, which includes torrents. Sure, they can break that contract, but there are repercussions. But they do not have infinite rights to do anything they please because they are a private company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I believe they have a contract with me to provide me internet service , which includes torrents .
Sure , they can break that contract , but there are repercussions .
But they do not have infinite rights to do anything they please because they are a private company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I believe they have a contract with me to provide me internet service, which includes torrents.
Sure, they can break that contract, but there are repercussions.
But they do not have infinite rights to do anything they please because they are a private company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</id>
	<title>This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264694340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed , while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935056</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stop telling me what i can do on the interent and where I can go, I paid my $40 this month</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stop telling me what i can do on the interent and where I can go , I paid my $ 40 this month</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop telling me what i can do on the interent and where I can go, I paid my $40 this month</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933744</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What people will start doing is paying for two ISPs: one locally for raw data access, and one remotely as an unfiltered endpoint onto the internet.
<br> <br>
If Comcast really wants, all they will see from customers is one encrypted, very high throughput connection
<br> <br>
They can't exactly block VPN connections like this, as business users are required to use VPNs more and more often</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people will start doing is paying for two ISPs : one locally for raw data access , and one remotely as an unfiltered endpoint onto the internet .
If Comcast really wants , all they will see from customers is one encrypted , very high throughput connection They ca n't exactly block VPN connections like this , as business users are required to use VPNs more and more often</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people will start doing is paying for two ISPs: one locally for raw data access, and one remotely as an unfiltered endpoint onto the internet.
If Comcast really wants, all they will see from customers is one encrypted, very high throughput connection
 
They can't exactly block VPN connections like this, as business users are required to use VPNs more and more often</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934966</id>
	<title>Re:Forget bit torrent.</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1264699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could but they will fail.  The list of perfectly legitimate destinations will always be longer than the white list.  Their customers will continuously be bounced from sites.  The word of mouth and PR would be disastrous.  Sure you can</p><p>If you block protocol they just tunnel it through a different protocol or encrypt the protocol.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could but they will fail .
The list of perfectly legitimate destinations will always be longer than the white list .
Their customers will continuously be bounced from sites .
The word of mouth and PR would be disastrous .
Sure you canIf you block protocol they just tunnel it through a different protocol or encrypt the protocol .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could but they will fail.
The list of perfectly legitimate destinations will always be longer than the white list.
Their customers will continuously be bounced from sites.
The word of mouth and PR would be disastrous.
Sure you canIf you block protocol they just tunnel it through a different protocol or encrypt the protocol.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30939778</id>
	<title>giant mess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264669260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow government creating a giant mess with new regulations, who coulda guessed that would happen! come on, libertarians have been warning us that supporting net neutrality is just going to give the government more control over the internet and they will fuck things up. the internet is best when there is minimal government interference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow government creating a giant mess with new regulations , who coulda guessed that would happen !
come on , libertarians have been warning us that supporting net neutrality is just going to give the government more control over the internet and they will fuck things up .
the internet is best when there is minimal government interference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow government creating a giant mess with new regulations, who coulda guessed that would happen!
come on, libertarians have been warning us that supporting net neutrality is just going to give the government more control over the internet and they will fuck things up.
the internet is best when there is minimal government interference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30936254</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The downloader also does HTTP download.<br>Naturally, it will go much slower once the iron curtain falls on the internet and everyone will have to use the http option...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The downloader also does HTTP download.Naturally , it will go much slower once the iron curtain falls on the internet and everyone will have to use the http option.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The downloader also does HTTP download.Naturally, it will go much slower once the iron curtain falls on the internet and everyone will have to use the http option...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942392</id>
	<title>Re:I told you so</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264677300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The support for net neutrality comes from the idea that things aren't too bad right now (Comcast has had issues though, I'm sure there are other examples too), and we would like to keep it that way, if not make it better. If we wait for things to get worse, we all know it will be far more difficult to get back to where we were.<br> <br>

I wrote to my congress representative supporting net neutrality, and the response was that she wants to minimize government regulation, and let the market sort things out. I agree with her sentiment, but I disagree that we have a competitive market. If communities owned the network so ISPs have equal access, we could have plenty of companies to choose from, and a demand for net neutrality would encourage some of those companies to cater to our interests. That is not the case right now, so government regulation is the best thing we have. There is a better chance of making the ISPs agree to net neutrality than getting them to agree to open up the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The support for net neutrality comes from the idea that things are n't too bad right now ( Comcast has had issues though , I 'm sure there are other examples too ) , and we would like to keep it that way , if not make it better .
If we wait for things to get worse , we all know it will be far more difficult to get back to where we were .
I wrote to my congress representative supporting net neutrality , and the response was that she wants to minimize government regulation , and let the market sort things out .
I agree with her sentiment , but I disagree that we have a competitive market .
If communities owned the network so ISPs have equal access , we could have plenty of companies to choose from , and a demand for net neutrality would encourage some of those companies to cater to our interests .
That is not the case right now , so government regulation is the best thing we have .
There is a better chance of making the ISPs agree to net neutrality than getting them to agree to open up the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The support for net neutrality comes from the idea that things aren't too bad right now (Comcast has had issues though, I'm sure there are other examples too), and we would like to keep it that way, if not make it better.
If we wait for things to get worse, we all know it will be far more difficult to get back to where we were.
I wrote to my congress representative supporting net neutrality, and the response was that she wants to minimize government regulation, and let the market sort things out.
I agree with her sentiment, but I disagree that we have a competitive market.
If communities owned the network so ISPs have equal access, we could have plenty of companies to choose from, and a demand for net neutrality would encourage some of those companies to cater to our interests.
That is not the case right now, so government regulation is the best thing we have.
There is a better chance of making the ISPs agree to net neutrality than getting them to agree to open up the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932964</id>
	<title>let me fix that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; practices <p> practises</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; practices practises</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; practices  practises</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30961712</id>
	<title>Re:Question for you...</title>
	<author>Pichu0102</author>
	<datestamp>1264862640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.</p></div></blockquote><p>Organ harvesting?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.Organ harvesting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they can figure out a way to make money from riots.Organ harvesting?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933720</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(because it's an MMORPG, the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated)</i>
<br> <br>
Thank you so much for clarifying that point.  I had no idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( because it 's an MMORPG , the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated ) Thank you so much for clarifying that point .
I had no idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(because it's an MMORPG, the client needs to be updated when the servers are updated)
 
Thank you so much for clarifying that point.
I had no idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933098</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, it's almost as if the GP was being sarcastic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , it 's almost as if the GP was being sarcastic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, it's almost as if the GP was being sarcastic...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</id>
	<title>We told you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We told you that any government-mandated net neutrality was going to be a lot of fun.<br>But alas, people continue to live with their idyllic, dog-like trust of government, politicians, and bureaucrats, and didn't listen.</p><p>Not to mention the whole net neutrality debate was mostly paranoia anyway.  The real solution is for local governments to do something about the monopolies they grant telcos, but it's always easier to pray that god (the government) saves the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We told you that any government-mandated net neutrality was going to be a lot of fun.But alas , people continue to live with their idyllic , dog-like trust of government , politicians , and bureaucrats , and did n't listen.Not to mention the whole net neutrality debate was mostly paranoia anyway .
The real solution is for local governments to do something about the monopolies they grant telcos , but it 's always easier to pray that god ( the government ) saves the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We told you that any government-mandated net neutrality was going to be a lot of fun.But alas, people continue to live with their idyllic, dog-like trust of government, politicians, and bureaucrats, and didn't listen.Not to mention the whole net neutrality debate was mostly paranoia anyway.
The real solution is for local governments to do something about the monopolies they grant telcos, but it's always easier to pray that god (the government) saves the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982</id>
	<title>Forget bit torrent.</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1264693140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this just protocols or also destinations?</p><p>Could your ISP block websites which it considers to be involved in copyright infringement?<br>Might it even only allow you communicate with a whitelist of IP's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this just protocols or also destinations ? Could your ISP block websites which it considers to be involved in copyright infringement ? Might it even only allow you communicate with a whitelist of IP 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this just protocols or also destinations?Could your ISP block websites which it considers to be involved in copyright infringement?Might it even only allow you communicate with a whitelist of IP's?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously, the only use of Bit Torrent is illegal file sharing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/SARCASM</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , the only use of Bit Torrent is illegal file sharing .
/SARCASM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, the only use of Bit Torrent is illegal file sharing.
/SARCASM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942862</id>
	<title>Re:I told you so</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264679040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>taking it away from ISP sysadmins</p></div><p>Damned straight. Keep in mind that this is the bare <i>minimum</i> that ISP sysadmins have done, so it's not as if the new legislation has caused any more harm than no legislation.</p><p>Presumably, it does prevent some of the more egregious things that corrupt ISP sysadmins <i>could</i> have done, and <i>explicitly stated that they planned to do,</i> such as charging twice for the same bits (once to you, once to Google), prioritizing traffic based on business relationships (Skype goes up, SIP goes down, or vice versa), and so on.</p><p>I'm not saying I agree with this decision, but it sounds like you're saying, "See? The government didn't do it perfectly this time! THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS LIES TO YOU AND YOU SHOULD TRUST THE FREE MARKET INSTEAD ALL THE TIME FOREVER." I don't see how that follows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>taking it away from ISP sysadminsDamned straight .
Keep in mind that this is the bare minimum that ISP sysadmins have done , so it 's not as if the new legislation has caused any more harm than no legislation.Presumably , it does prevent some of the more egregious things that corrupt ISP sysadmins could have done , and explicitly stated that they planned to do , such as charging twice for the same bits ( once to you , once to Google ) , prioritizing traffic based on business relationships ( Skype goes up , SIP goes down , or vice versa ) , and so on.I 'm not saying I agree with this decision , but it sounds like you 're saying , " See ?
The government did n't do it perfectly this time !
THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS LIES TO YOU AND YOU SHOULD TRUST THE FREE MARKET INSTEAD ALL THE TIME FOREVER .
" I do n't see how that follows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>taking it away from ISP sysadminsDamned straight.
Keep in mind that this is the bare minimum that ISP sysadmins have done, so it's not as if the new legislation has caused any more harm than no legislation.Presumably, it does prevent some of the more egregious things that corrupt ISP sysadmins could have done, and explicitly stated that they planned to do, such as charging twice for the same bits (once to you, once to Google), prioritizing traffic based on business relationships (Skype goes up, SIP goes down, or vice versa), and so on.I'm not saying I agree with this decision, but it sounds like you're saying, "See?
The government didn't do it perfectly this time!
THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS LIES TO YOU AND YOU SHOULD TRUST THE FREE MARKET INSTEAD ALL THE TIME FOREVER.
" I don't see how that follows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.31035978</id>
	<title>Re:I told you so</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1265392680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will gladly answer your question.

Government is certainly not incorruptible; it is comprised of humans, as are corporations (marketing jokes aside). However unlike corporations, government agencies have the potential for transparency, which makes them the preferred solution in some situations.

This concept is well-paralleled by the FOSS movement, with which I assume that you are familiar. Open source, if done correctly, often leads to superior results. However, it is not a priori superior, as the catch is how transparent, open, and accountable your government is.

The only reason your ISP hasn't restricted your access already is because the FCC is actually doing the proper job of a government agency and fighting for consumer rights. (Aside: they don't have the full authority needed to enforce net neutrality, and therefore a bill from Congress is required)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will gladly answer your question .
Government is certainly not incorruptible ; it is comprised of humans , as are corporations ( marketing jokes aside ) .
However unlike corporations , government agencies have the potential for transparency , which makes them the preferred solution in some situations .
This concept is well-paralleled by the FOSS movement , with which I assume that you are familiar .
Open source , if done correctly , often leads to superior results .
However , it is not a priori superior , as the catch is how transparent , open , and accountable your government is .
The only reason your ISP has n't restricted your access already is because the FCC is actually doing the proper job of a government agency and fighting for consumer rights .
( Aside : they do n't have the full authority needed to enforce net neutrality , and therefore a bill from Congress is required )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will gladly answer your question.
Government is certainly not incorruptible; it is comprised of humans, as are corporations (marketing jokes aside).
However unlike corporations, government agencies have the potential for transparency, which makes them the preferred solution in some situations.
This concept is well-paralleled by the FOSS movement, with which I assume that you are familiar.
Open source, if done correctly, often leads to superior results.
However, it is not a priori superior, as the catch is how transparent, open, and accountable your government is.
The only reason your ISP hasn't restricted your access already is because the FCC is actually doing the proper job of a government agency and fighting for consumer rights.
(Aside: they don't have the full authority needed to enforce net neutrality, and therefore a bill from Congress is required)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933048</id>
	<title>Mindless, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a very interesting post coming from someone with a name like you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a very interesting post coming from someone with a name like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a very interesting post coming from someone with a name like you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30939124</id>
	<title>can't wait</title>
	<author>charliemopps11</author>
	<datestamp>1264710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without a doubt, as soon as they make torrenting difficult, someones going to invent something better... I can't wait to try out whatever it is. There's nothing they can do to stop this short of shutting down the internet altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without a doubt , as soon as they make torrenting difficult , someones going to invent something better... I ca n't wait to try out whatever it is .
There 's nothing they can do to stop this short of shutting down the internet altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without a doubt, as soon as they make torrenting difficult, someones going to invent something better... I can't wait to try out whatever it is.
There's nothing they can do to stop this short of shutting down the internet altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30941406</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ISPs bandwidth requirements decrease because of blocking torrents what is their incentive to improve their service to keep up with the demands of their customers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ISPs bandwidth requirements decrease because of blocking torrents what is their incentive to improve their service to keep up with the demands of their customers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ISPs bandwidth requirements decrease because of blocking torrents what is their incentive to improve their service to keep up with the demands of their customers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934448</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't the TPB already offer a VPN service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the TPB already offer a VPN service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the TPB already offer a VPN service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894</id>
	<title>I told you so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?  Giving it to the government makes it susceptible to lobbying from groups like the RIAA, and I knew torrent traffic would be the first on the chopping block.</p><p>This is sad but funny.  Out of some alarmist political agenda scaring people about a problem that doesn't even exist, naive people were demanding that we give the government control of the internet, taking it away from ISP sysadmins based on the usual anti-capitalism arguments. Well, have fun, because you're getting what you want...government control of your once-free internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a net neutrality article comes up , I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today , as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right ?
Giving it to the government makes it susceptible to lobbying from groups like the RIAA , and I knew torrent traffic would be the first on the chopping block.This is sad but funny .
Out of some alarmist political agenda scaring people about a problem that does n't even exist , naive people were demanding that we give the government control of the internet , taking it away from ISP sysadmins based on the usual anti-capitalism arguments .
Well , have fun , because you 're getting what you want...government control of your once-free internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a net neutrality article comes up, I ask the same question--how is handing control of the internet over to the government somehow better than what we have today, as if the government is some incorruptible entity that does everything right?
Giving it to the government makes it susceptible to lobbying from groups like the RIAA, and I knew torrent traffic would be the first on the chopping block.This is sad but funny.
Out of some alarmist political agenda scaring people about a problem that doesn't even exist, naive people were demanding that we give the government control of the internet, taking it away from ISP sysadmins based on the usual anti-capitalism arguments.
Well, have fun, because you're getting what you want...government control of your once-free internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935686</id>
	<title>Re:This will harm legal sharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like mandatory encryption. It's already ready to go built into any client worth its salt. All we have to do is flip a switch once they flip their switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like mandatory encryption .
It 's already ready to go built into any client worth its salt .
All we have to do is flip a switch once they flip their switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like mandatory encryption.
It's already ready to go built into any client worth its salt.
All we have to do is flip a switch once they flip their switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933436</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1264695240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for adding in the word SARCASM at the end. If you hadn't done that I would have thought you were being serious.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/JOKE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for adding in the word SARCASM at the end .
If you had n't done that I would have thought you were being serious .
/JOKE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for adding in the word SARCASM at the end.
If you hadn't done that I would have thought you were being serious.
/JOKE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30961712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30941406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.31035978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30944502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30939084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30936254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_1431214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1431214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1431214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1431214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30944502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.31035978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30942392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30936254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30941406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30935686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30937792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30934666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_1431214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30932996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30961712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30939084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_1431214.30933048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
