<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_2220234</id>
	<title>NSF Tags $30M For Game-Changing Internet Research</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"So you want to build a better Internet? The National Science Foundation today said it would spread $30 million over <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/56553">2-4 projects that radically transform the Internet</a> 'through new security, reliability and collaborative applications.  The NSF said its Future Internet Architectures (FIA) program wants: "Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications, the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today. Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " So you want to build a better Internet ?
The National Science Foundation today said it would spread $ 30 million over 2-4 projects that radically transform the Internet 'through new security , reliability and collaborative applications .
The NSF said its Future Internet Architectures ( FIA ) program wants : " Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications , the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today .
Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes , but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "So you want to build a better Internet?
The National Science Foundation today said it would spread $30 million over 2-4 projects that radically transform the Internet 'through new security, reliability and collaborative applications.
The NSF said its Future Internet Architectures (FIA) program wants: "Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications, the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today.
Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944246</id>
	<title>Self Signed Certs</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264686900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell you what? Give me $15 million and I'll give the other $15 million to Mozilla to get them to stop ripping on self signed certs. Then we can finally have (far more) secure web browsing than we already have, and all with existing technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what ?
Give me $ 15 million and I 'll give the other $ 15 million to Mozilla to get them to stop ripping on self signed certs .
Then we can finally have ( far more ) secure web browsing than we already have , and all with existing technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what?
Give me $15 million and I'll give the other $15 million to Mozilla to get them to stop ripping on self signed certs.
Then we can finally have (far more) secure web browsing than we already have, and all with existing technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186</id>
	<title>Hey, I'll take a couple hundred grand for this</title>
	<author>goose-incarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1264680480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt that this is open to non-Americans, so I'll just post my idea here instead:<br> <br>
Make every endpoint (home 'puter) have no less than two different ISP connections. Then
every home computer can also be a router. This does mean that every single packet <i>has</i>
to be encrypted (a solved problem, methinks), and that every single endpoint is properly uniquely
identified.<br> <br>
Advantages are numerous - encryption is required for it to work at all, consumers have redundancy
(not only for their own net connection, but throughout the entire path as well), ISP's don't have to provide
$X Mb/s connection, they can provide $X/2 Mb/s and the computer can load-balance while routing.
Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software.<br> <br>

Disadvantages do, of course, include the fact that every consumer doubles their internet bill and that a govt is
unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that this is open to non-Americans , so I 'll just post my idea here instead : Make every endpoint ( home 'puter ) have no less than two different ISP connections .
Then every home computer can also be a router .
This does mean that every single packet has to be encrypted ( a solved problem , methinks ) , and that every single endpoint is properly uniquely identified .
Advantages are numerous - encryption is required for it to work at all , consumers have redundancy ( not only for their own net connection , but throughout the entire path as well ) , ISP 's do n't have to provide $ X Mb/s connection , they can provide $ X/2 Mb/s and the computer can load-balance while routing .
Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software .
Disadvantages do , of course , include the fact that every consumer doubles their internet bill and that a govt is unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that this is open to non-Americans, so I'll just post my idea here instead: 
Make every endpoint (home 'puter) have no less than two different ISP connections.
Then
every home computer can also be a router.
This does mean that every single packet has
to be encrypted (a solved problem, methinks), and that every single endpoint is properly uniquely
identified.
Advantages are numerous - encryption is required for it to work at all, consumers have redundancy
(not only for their own net connection, but throughout the entire path as well), ISP's don't have to provide
$X Mb/s connection, they can provide $X/2 Mb/s and the computer can load-balance while routing.
Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software.
Disadvantages do, of course, include the fact that every consumer doubles their internet bill and that a govt is
unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942810</id>
	<title>NFS said:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet, I am disappoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet , I am disappoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet, I am disappoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430</id>
	<title>Whose security are we talking about?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Increased security, built into the fabric of the internet, sounds like a goal everyone can support. However, to build security into the network, you must necessarily build in stronger methods of identifying the users of the system. This will make anonymity much more difficult, and will greatly increase the government's ability to track the online activities of individuals.</p><p>There are some situations where that power would be used for good, but do we really want to allow the government more power and more ability to monitor the population? I am sure that they are drooling over the possibility. The recent abuses of the FBI should give everyone a fair idea of how responsibly this power would be used.</p><p>I'm not sure what a "game-changing" technology would look like, anyhow. The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints. That much is not going to change, and the rest is just implementation. What are we going to try, sending twos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Increased security , built into the fabric of the internet , sounds like a goal everyone can support .
However , to build security into the network , you must necessarily build in stronger methods of identifying the users of the system .
This will make anonymity much more difficult , and will greatly increase the government 's ability to track the online activities of individuals.There are some situations where that power would be used for good , but do we really want to allow the government more power and more ability to monitor the population ?
I am sure that they are drooling over the possibility .
The recent abuses of the FBI should give everyone a fair idea of how responsibly this power would be used.I 'm not sure what a " game-changing " technology would look like , anyhow .
The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints .
That much is not going to change , and the rest is just implementation .
What are we going to try , sending twos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increased security, built into the fabric of the internet, sounds like a goal everyone can support.
However, to build security into the network, you must necessarily build in stronger methods of identifying the users of the system.
This will make anonymity much more difficult, and will greatly increase the government's ability to track the online activities of individuals.There are some situations where that power would be used for good, but do we really want to allow the government more power and more ability to monitor the population?
I am sure that they are drooling over the possibility.
The recent abuses of the FBI should give everyone a fair idea of how responsibly this power would be used.I'm not sure what a "game-changing" technology would look like, anyhow.
The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints.
That much is not going to change, and the rest is just implementation.
What are we going to try, sending twos?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943600</id>
	<title>Changing games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I know some people are passionately and quite stubbornly devoted to their games, but $30M to convince someone to change from, say, Halo to Gears of War?  That seems a bit excessive...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I know some people are passionately and quite stubbornly devoted to their games , but $ 30M to convince someone to change from , say , Halo to Gears of War ?
That seems a bit excessive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I know some people are passionately and quite stubbornly devoted to their games, but $30M to convince someone to change from, say, Halo to Gears of War?
That seems a bit excessive...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946890</id>
	<title>Re:Whose security are we talking about?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure what a "game-changing" technology would look like, anyhow. The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints. That much is not going to change, and the rest is just implementation. What are we going to try, sending twos?</p></div><p>I was thinking something similar, but then I realized in 1990 someone could have said the same thing. Then the world wide web came along, and while it wasn't exactly a change in the underlying basics of routing, it completely changed the way the internet appears from the surface.  So I wouldn't be surprised if another similar change came along that completely changed how the internet looks again, though I have no idea what that change would be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what a " game-changing " technology would look like , anyhow .
The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints .
That much is not going to change , and the rest is just implementation .
What are we going to try , sending twos ? I was thinking something similar , but then I realized in 1990 someone could have said the same thing .
Then the world wide web came along , and while it was n't exactly a change in the underlying basics of routing , it completely changed the way the internet appears from the surface .
So I would n't be surprised if another similar change came along that completely changed how the internet looks again , though I have no idea what that change would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what a "game-changing" technology would look like, anyhow.
The internet is fundamentally about shuffling bits of data between endpoints.
That much is not going to change, and the rest is just implementation.
What are we going to try, sending twos?I was thinking something similar, but then I realized in 1990 someone could have said the same thing.
Then the world wide web came along, and while it wasn't exactly a change in the underlying basics of routing, it completely changed the way the internet appears from the surface.
So I wouldn't be surprised if another similar change came along that completely changed how the internet looks again, though I have no idea what that change would be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943148</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264680300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Uh, can I opt-out of the future?</i></p><p>Sooner or later we all opt out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , can I opt-out of the future ? Sooner or later we all opt out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Uh, can I opt-out of the future?Sooner or later we all opt out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946726</id>
	<title>Some questions</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264797420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ISP's don't have to provide $X Mb/s connection, they can provide $X/2 Mb/s [...] every consumer doubles their internet bill</p></div><p>Why?  Isn't there just as much infrastructure to maintain, and just as many bytes to transfer?  Wouldn't the cost of that stay constant?  Or does 100\% of your bill go to keeping customer records and (oh wait, you may be on to something) customer service?  If the custserv load increases, I might believe you.  Otherwise, what's the reason for doubling the bill?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>encryption is required for it to work at all</p></div><p>Erm, why?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>consumers have redundancy (not only for their own net connection, but throughout the entire path as well)</p></div><p>What does the multi-homed-ness of endpoints have to do with redundancy in the core / on the backbone?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software.</p></div><p>What do you consider "torrent-like"?  Sure, you can make multiple parallel requests, but you can do that while single-homed today.  Don't you need some code to merge the responses into a coherent file or byte sequence*?  Don't you need some code to decide which peers to send to?  Don't you want that code to make smart decisions, i.e. send to the ones that send most to you, in order to entice them to send more to you?  (If everybody employs this strategy, the bandwidth allocation converges to a market equilibrium.)</p><p>(* Hey, I'm getting a whacky idea: that's exactly what TCP does, by receiving beyond the window.  Maybe we could... hmm... nah...)</p><p><div class="quote"><p> a govt is unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>How did TOR enter the picture?</p><p>Don't take what I say as criticism: your idea may be wonderful and sense-making.  I just don't quite seem to understand <em>why</em> it is (if it is).  Please help me understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISP 's do n't have to provide $ X Mb/s connection , they can provide $ X/2 Mb/s [ ... ] every consumer doubles their internet billWhy ?
Is n't there just as much infrastructure to maintain , and just as many bytes to transfer ?
Would n't the cost of that stay constant ?
Or does 100 \ % of your bill go to keeping customer records and ( oh wait , you may be on to something ) customer service ?
If the custserv load increases , I might believe you .
Otherwise , what 's the reason for doubling the bill ? encryption is required for it to work at allErm , why ? consumers have redundancy ( not only for their own net connection , but throughout the entire path as well ) What does the multi-homed-ness of endpoints have to do with redundancy in the core / on the backbone ? Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software.What do you consider " torrent-like " ?
Sure , you can make multiple parallel requests , but you can do that while single-homed today .
Do n't you need some code to merge the responses into a coherent file or byte sequence * ?
Do n't you need some code to decide which peers to send to ?
Do n't you want that code to make smart decisions , i.e .
send to the ones that send most to you , in order to entice them to send more to you ?
( If everybody employs this strategy , the bandwidth allocation converges to a market equilibrium .
) ( * Hey , I 'm getting a whacky idea : that 's exactly what TCP does , by receiving beyond the window .
Maybe we could... hmm... nah... ) a govt is unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout : - ) How did TOR enter the picture ? Do n't take what I say as criticism : your idea may be wonderful and sense-making .
I just do n't quite seem to understand why it is ( if it is ) .
Please help me understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISP's don't have to provide $X Mb/s connection, they can provide $X/2 Mb/s [...] every consumer doubles their internet billWhy?
Isn't there just as much infrastructure to maintain, and just as many bytes to transfer?
Wouldn't the cost of that stay constant?
Or does 100\% of your bill go to keeping customer records and (oh wait, you may be on to something) customer service?
If the custserv load increases, I might believe you.
Otherwise, what's the reason for doubling the bill?encryption is required for it to work at allErm, why?consumers have redundancy (not only for their own net connection, but throughout the entire path as well)What does the multi-homed-ness of endpoints have to do with redundancy in the core / on the backbone?Last advantage is that torrent-like downloads can take place without the need for special p2p software.What do you consider "torrent-like"?
Sure, you can make multiple parallel requests, but you can do that while single-homed today.
Don't you need some code to merge the responses into a coherent file or byte sequence*?
Don't you need some code to decide which peers to send to?
Don't you want that code to make smart decisions, i.e.
send to the ones that send most to you, in order to entice them to send more to you?
(If everybody employs this strategy, the bandwidth allocation converges to a market equilibrium.
)(* Hey, I'm getting a whacky idea: that's exactly what TCP does, by receiving beyond the window.
Maybe we could... hmm... nah...) a govt is unlikely to fund a global TOR rollout :-)How did TOR enter the picture?Don't take what I say as criticism: your idea may be wonderful and sense-making.
I just don't quite seem to understand why it is (if it is).
Please help me understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943820</id>
	<title>Re:Time to disolve NSF?</title>
	<author>Truth is life</author>
	<datestamp>1264684080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education, which is broken rather than Internet which isn't not so broken.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

That's not the point of the NSF. Besides, as this link <a href="http://nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10001/toc.jsp" title="nsf.gov" rel="nofollow">http://nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10001/toc.jsp</a> [nsf.gov] to their FY 2009 report shows, they already spend almost <em>a billion dollars a year</em> on education. Or <em>over 30 times</em> the value of this award. I really don't think you can claim that canceling this award and giving the money to the DoEdu (or even shifting it to the education side of NSF) would be better value for the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education , which is broken rather than Internet which is n't not so broken .
That 's not the point of the NSF .
Besides , as this link http : //nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10001/toc.jsp [ nsf.gov ] to their FY 2009 report shows , they already spend almost a billion dollars a year on education .
Or over 30 times the value of this award .
I really do n't think you can claim that canceling this award and giving the money to the DoEdu ( or even shifting it to the education side of NSF ) would be better value for the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education, which is broken rather than Internet which isn't not so broken.
That's not the point of the NSF.
Besides, as this link http://nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10001/toc.jsp [nsf.gov] to their FY 2009 report shows, they already spend almost a billion dollars a year on education.
Or over 30 times the value of this award.
I really don't think you can claim that canceling this award and giving the money to the DoEdu (or even shifting it to the education side of NSF) would be better value for the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942794</id>
	<title>Ye gods...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm certain that the major innovations they are targeting will come in time there are some fairly basic changes to how the internet works today that can have major benefits.  These are mostly in the way that identity is managed on the web and 'net.</p><p>The technologies exist today to make the web twice as easy and half as painful to use, including the end of passwords as we know them.  When will these real changes that will help foster the next generation of technologies come to fruition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm certain that the major innovations they are targeting will come in time there are some fairly basic changes to how the internet works today that can have major benefits .
These are mostly in the way that identity is managed on the web and 'net.The technologies exist today to make the web twice as easy and half as painful to use , including the end of passwords as we know them .
When will these real changes that will help foster the next generation of technologies come to fruition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm certain that the major innovations they are targeting will come in time there are some fairly basic changes to how the internet works today that can have major benefits.
These are mostly in the way that identity is managed on the web and 'net.The technologies exist today to make the web twice as easy and half as painful to use, including the end of passwords as we know them.
When will these real changes that will help foster the next generation of technologies come to fruition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943370</id>
	<title>Re:I can solve this easy</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1264681500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru, but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.</p><p>If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac, one of two things would happen. Either
A) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes. And yes, there are some, so don't try and deny that. Or
B) Macs, being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy (opening more holes) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.</p><p>And if everyone were using Linux, it would be just the same as before. Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.</p><p>You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist.</p></div><p>Microsoft is just catering to a need.  The "need" is that people want to use technologies and networks without understanding what they are using or at least learning about their correct use.  So long as people think this is a great idea and refuse to invest a little time learning about the tools they use every day, the security situation is not going to improve.  I'm actually fine with this; people who fall for phishing attempts and the like are merely getting out of the system what they were willing to put into it.  It concerns me that this is not a technological problem but technical solutions are being proposed for it.  Those can only have the effect of restricting the free and open network that is available today for anyone who wants to learn how to use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru , but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac , one of two things would happen .
Either A ) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes .
And yes , there are some , so do n't try and deny that .
Or B ) Macs , being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy ( opening more holes ) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.And if everyone were using Linux , it would be just the same as before .
Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist.Microsoft is just catering to a need .
The " need " is that people want to use technologies and networks without understanding what they are using or at least learning about their correct use .
So long as people think this is a great idea and refuse to invest a little time learning about the tools they use every day , the security situation is not going to improve .
I 'm actually fine with this ; people who fall for phishing attempts and the like are merely getting out of the system what they were willing to put into it .
It concerns me that this is not a technological problem but technical solutions are being proposed for it .
Those can only have the effect of restricting the free and open network that is available today for anyone who wants to learn how to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru, but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac, one of two things would happen.
Either
A) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes.
And yes, there are some, so don't try and deny that.
Or
B) Macs, being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy (opening more holes) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.And if everyone were using Linux, it would be just the same as before.
Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist.Microsoft is just catering to a need.
The "need" is that people want to use technologies and networks without understanding what they are using or at least learning about their correct use.
So long as people think this is a great idea and refuse to invest a little time learning about the tools they use every day, the security situation is not going to improve.
I'm actually fine with this; people who fall for phishing attempts and the like are merely getting out of the system what they were willing to put into it.
It concerns me that this is not a technological problem but technical solutions are being proposed for it.
Those can only have the effect of restricting the free and open network that is available today for anyone who wants to learn how to use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944114</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>misnohmer</author>
	<datestamp>1264685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may like this [http://www.nebunet.com] - social networking of any IP connected devices, not just people. The idea is to turn the internet into many independent secure networks as easy to use as your favorite social networking site. It's not something google would like to see - self organizing internet based on context - but most people would. What do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may like this [ http : //www.nebunet.com ] - social networking of any IP connected devices , not just people .
The idea is to turn the internet into many independent secure networks as easy to use as your favorite social networking site .
It 's not something google would like to see - self organizing internet based on context - but most people would .
What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may like this [http://www.nebunet.com] - social networking of any IP connected devices, not just people.
The idea is to turn the internet into many independent secure networks as easy to use as your favorite social networking site.
It's not something google would like to see - self organizing internet based on context - but most people would.
What do you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943202</id>
	<title>NSF means ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1264680540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Not Sufficient Funds. I'll consider that $30 mill a down payment. You'll have my solution upon delivery of the balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Not Sufficient Funds .
I 'll consider that $ 30 mill a down payment .
You 'll have my solution upon delivery of the balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Not Sufficient Funds.
I'll consider that $30 mill a down payment.
You'll have my solution upon delivery of the balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30949434</id>
	<title>Re:Whose security are we talking about?</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1264780860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used up my mod points yesterday morning so now all I can do is say "Right On Brother" and offer you a fist bump.  I'm certain that the "improvement" the government is looking for is the total elimination of anonymity in the Tubes.<br> <br>  They that can give up anonymity for the sake of reducing Spam deserve neither anonymity or a reduction in Spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used up my mod points yesterday morning so now all I can do is say " Right On Brother " and offer you a fist bump .
I 'm certain that the " improvement " the government is looking for is the total elimination of anonymity in the Tubes .
They that can give up anonymity for the sake of reducing Spam deserve neither anonymity or a reduction in Spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used up my mod points yesterday morning so now all I can do is say "Right On Brother" and offer you a fist bump.
I'm certain that the "improvement" the government is looking for is the total elimination of anonymity in the Tubes.
They that can give up anonymity for the sake of reducing Spam deserve neither anonymity or a reduction in Spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945142</id>
	<title>Improving the tubes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has far more to do with scrapping all the technology that the internet replaces than improving it's inherent functionality.</p><p>Cable boxes? Phones? Pants?  The wave of the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has far more to do with scrapping all the technology that the internet replaces than improving it 's inherent functionality.Cable boxes ?
Phones ? Pants ?
The wave of the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has far more to do with scrapping all the technology that the internet replaces than improving it's inherent functionality.Cable boxes?
Phones? Pants?
The wave of the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942930</id>
	<title>I'll take cash or check...</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1264679340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Security:</b> <br>
Fourier Transform FT( Internet ) - Security through obscurity, it won't make any sense!<br> <br>
<b>Reliability:</b> <br>
Mobius Transform MT( Internet) - You always end up where you start, SynAckishly<br> <br>
<b>Collaboration:</b> <br>
Wavelet Transform WT ( Internet) - Make it a design ideology, Google's got it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security : Fourier Transform FT ( Internet ) - Security through obscurity , it wo n't make any sense !
Reliability : Mobius Transform MT ( Internet ) - You always end up where you start , SynAckishly Collaboration : Wavelet Transform WT ( Internet ) - Make it a design ideology , Google 's got it ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security: 
Fourier Transform FT( Internet ) - Security through obscurity, it won't make any sense!
Reliability: 
Mobius Transform MT( Internet) - You always end up where you start, SynAckishly 
Collaboration: 
Wavelet Transform WT ( Internet) - Make it a design ideology, Google's got it ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942756</id>
	<title>SPDY</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264678560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper" title="chromium.org">http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper</a> [chromium.org]</p><p>Do I get $30 million for finding that for him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper [ chromium.org ] Do I get $ 30 million for finding that for him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper [chromium.org]Do I get $30 million for finding that for him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943694</id>
	<title>Anyone else read "NSF" as...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Need For Speed? I thought this was going to be about a new groundbreaking online racer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Need For Speed ?
I thought this was going to be about a new groundbreaking online racer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Need For Speed?
I thought this was going to be about a new groundbreaking online racer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944266</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264687080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.</p></div></blockquote><p>We can, quite easily (on the technical front), but it doesn't take any stunning new transformative technology, just the kind of incrementalism that the effort here disdains. Its not like the problems of SPAM and other similar problems haven't already spawned technologies designed from the ground up as complete "super-replacements" (that is, replacements with broader general applicability than the replaced system) that are also designed to avoid the problems with the replaced systems. For email and the problem of SPAM, AMQP (a generalized messaging protocol which subsumes, but goes far beyond, the function of email) is designed from the ground up to avoid the possibility of recipients being spammed.</p><p>The problems with replacing existing technologies with more secure ones is more of a social problem than a technical one. Putting money into technical research that specifically <i>requires</i> that it go only into things that are radically different than what exists now -- and thus a bigger social problem to get people to transition to -- don't help at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.We can , quite easily ( on the technical front ) , but it does n't take any stunning new transformative technology , just the kind of incrementalism that the effort here disdains .
Its not like the problems of SPAM and other similar problems have n't already spawned technologies designed from the ground up as complete " super-replacements " ( that is , replacements with broader general applicability than the replaced system ) that are also designed to avoid the problems with the replaced systems .
For email and the problem of SPAM , AMQP ( a generalized messaging protocol which subsumes , but goes far beyond , the function of email ) is designed from the ground up to avoid the possibility of recipients being spammed.The problems with replacing existing technologies with more secure ones is more of a social problem than a technical one .
Putting money into technical research that specifically requires that it go only into things that are radically different than what exists now -- and thus a bigger social problem to get people to transition to -- do n't help at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.We can, quite easily (on the technical front), but it doesn't take any stunning new transformative technology, just the kind of incrementalism that the effort here disdains.
Its not like the problems of SPAM and other similar problems haven't already spawned technologies designed from the ground up as complete "super-replacements" (that is, replacements with broader general applicability than the replaced system) that are also designed to avoid the problems with the replaced systems.
For email and the problem of SPAM, AMQP (a generalized messaging protocol which subsumes, but goes far beyond, the function of email) is designed from the ground up to avoid the possibility of recipients being spammed.The problems with replacing existing technologies with more secure ones is more of a social problem than a technical one.
Putting money into technical research that specifically requires that it go only into things that are radically different than what exists now -- and thus a bigger social problem to get people to transition to -- don't help at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946780</id>
	<title>Will any organization *not* botch implementation?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch.</p></div><p>That reminds me of a general notion: in economy, in theory, some things are best left to government.  Say, building infrastructure, running a police force, internalizing negative externalities through pollution regulation, etc..</p><p>But if <b>no</b> political system can be made to exist where the government actually does well what  it (in theory) is the right "person" to do, is it really a good idea to leave it to government?  If the market does worse than the theoretical best solution but the government in practice does even worse even though in theory it should do better, why leave it to the government?</p><p>(You can flip it around and say "Market Failure" if you want a pro-government story to explain this.)</p><p>Having a monopoly on assigning internet names and/or numbers might mean that in the current political and economic reality, any organization that handles the monopoly will botch it and screw the users.</p><p>If that is the case (I'm not sure that it is, but <em>if</em>), maybe a network architecture that doesn't have the monopoly will produce a better internet, even though in theory it should be worse?</p><p>This is not a definitive answer.  It's a question.  One I think people designing internetworking infrastructure should ask themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch.That reminds me of a general notion : in economy , in theory , some things are best left to government .
Say , building infrastructure , running a police force , internalizing negative externalities through pollution regulation , etc..But if no political system can be made to exist where the government actually does well what it ( in theory ) is the right " person " to do , is it really a good idea to leave it to government ?
If the market does worse than the theoretical best solution but the government in practice does even worse even though in theory it should do better , why leave it to the government ?
( You can flip it around and say " Market Failure " if you want a pro-government story to explain this .
) Having a monopoly on assigning internet names and/or numbers might mean that in the current political and economic reality , any organization that handles the monopoly will botch it and screw the users.If that is the case ( I 'm not sure that it is , but if ) , maybe a network architecture that does n't have the monopoly will produce a better internet , even though in theory it should be worse ? This is not a definitive answer .
It 's a question .
One I think people designing internetworking infrastructure should ask themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch.That reminds me of a general notion: in economy, in theory, some things are best left to government.
Say, building infrastructure, running a police force, internalizing negative externalities through pollution regulation, etc..But if no political system can be made to exist where the government actually does well what  it (in theory) is the right "person" to do, is it really a good idea to leave it to government?
If the market does worse than the theoretical best solution but the government in practice does even worse even though in theory it should do better, why leave it to the government?
(You can flip it around and say "Market Failure" if you want a pro-government story to explain this.
)Having a monopoly on assigning internet names and/or numbers might mean that in the current political and economic reality, any organization that handles the monopoly will botch it and screw the users.If that is the case (I'm not sure that it is, but if), maybe a network architecture that doesn't have the monopoly will produce a better internet, even though in theory it should be worse?This is not a definitive answer.
It's a question.
One I think people designing internetworking infrastructure should ask themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942830</id>
	<title>All-out pipe-dream grant</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications, the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today. Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century."
</p><p>
Essentially, it's a "Stimulus" plan for network research sector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications , the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today .
Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes , but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century .
" Essentially , it 's a " Stimulus " plan for network research sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"Technological innovations and the requirements of emerging and yet to be discovered applications, the Internet of the future is likely to be different from that of today.
Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
"

Essentially, it's a "Stimulus" plan for network research sector.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945786</id>
	<title>Re:Time to disolve NSF?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Beyond a certain point -- which has already been exceeded in most of the U.S. -- there is a <b>negative</b> correlation between money spent and the quality of education.
<br> <br>
Spend it on buying NASA a clue, or something else equally worthwhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond a certain point -- which has already been exceeded in most of the U.S. -- there is a negative correlation between money spent and the quality of education .
Spend it on buying NASA a clue , or something else equally worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond a certain point -- which has already been exceeded in most of the U.S. -- there is a negative correlation between money spent and the quality of education.
Spend it on buying NASA a clue, or something else equally worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944022</id>
	<title>FIA: That acronym is already taken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The F&#233;d&#233;ration Internationale de l'Automobile (F1)

k thx</htmltext>
<tokenext>The F   d   ration Internationale de l'Automobile ( F1 ) k thx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (F1)

k thx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946690</id>
	<title>New validated email scheme</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1264797060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please???  As ingenious as some encryption algorithms are, I can't believe we haven't solved this one yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please ? ? ?
As ingenious as some encryption algorithms are , I ca n't believe we have n't solved this one yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please???
As ingenious as some encryption algorithms are, I can't believe we haven't solved this one yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945838</id>
	<title>Re:This is nice</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you think the cable monopolies are "mini", you haven't been paying attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you think the cable monopolies are " mini " , you have n't been paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you think the cable monopolies are "mini", you haven't been paying attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1264682040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only the future had opted into the past.</p><p>Quote from TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>From the Network World article: The NSF says it won't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented, with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning.</p><p>"We are not going to fund any proposals that don't have security expertise on their teams because we think security is so important," says Darleen Fisher, program director</p></div><p>And this really is the crux of the problem isn't it?</p><p>Rampant SPAM (95\% of all email), deep packet inspection, attacks, bot nets, the list goes on.  Almost all the abuses we suffer daily on the internet are due to the security-as-an-afterthought model.</p><p>There will be those (there always are) who insist that this is nothing more than a government take over and the installation ob yet more back doors.  There is nothing that can be done to appease that viewpoint, even open standards and open source will not suffice.</p><p>But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.</p><p>We defend the status quo because we know it, not because it is optimal, not because it is even close to being fully functional, and certainly not because it is fair.</p><p>Deal with political problems in the political arena.  But in the mean time, lets fix our tools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the future had opted into the past.Quote from TFA : From the Network World article : The NSF says it wo n't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented , with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning .
" We are not going to fund any proposals that do n't have security expertise on their teams because we think security is so important , " says Darleen Fisher , program directorAnd this really is the crux of the problem is n't it ? Rampant SPAM ( 95 \ % of all email ) , deep packet inspection , attacks , bot nets , the list goes on .
Almost all the abuses we suffer daily on the internet are due to the security-as-an-afterthought model.There will be those ( there always are ) who insist that this is nothing more than a government take over and the installation ob yet more back doors .
There is nothing that can be done to appease that viewpoint , even open standards and open source will not suffice.But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.We defend the status quo because we know it , not because it is optimal , not because it is even close to being fully functional , and certainly not because it is fair.Deal with political problems in the political arena .
But in the mean time , lets fix our tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the future had opted into the past.Quote from TFA:From the Network World article: The NSF says it won't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented, with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning.
"We are not going to fund any proposals that don't have security expertise on their teams because we think security is so important," says Darleen Fisher, program directorAnd this really is the crux of the problem isn't it?Rampant SPAM (95\% of all email), deep packet inspection, attacks, bot nets, the list goes on.
Almost all the abuses we suffer daily on the internet are due to the security-as-an-afterthought model.There will be those (there always are) who insist that this is nothing more than a government take over and the installation ob yet more back doors.
There is nothing that can be done to appease that viewpoint, even open standards and open source will not suffice.But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.We defend the status quo because we know it, not because it is optimal, not because it is even close to being fully functional, and certainly not because it is fair.Deal with political problems in the political arena.
But in the mean time, lets fix our tools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943334</id>
	<title>throw away DNS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey let's throw away DNS, and we can have the domainname battle all over again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey let 's throw away DNS , and we can have the domainname battle all over again ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey let's throw away DNS, and we can have the domainname battle all over again ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945050</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>lucif3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems so wrong headed "Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century." <p>

Right, because radical changes are so often effective and quickly adopted...  go, go, government waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems so wrong headed " Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes , but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century .
" Right , because radical changes are so often effective and quickly adopted... go , go , government waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems so wrong headed "Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
" 

Right, because radical changes are so often effective and quickly adopted...  go, go, government waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942974</id>
	<title>Best to keep doing patches</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1264679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul. For one, it will create a -huge- amount of waste in a short period of time, for another, it will not be entirely global, corporations, governments, etc will aim to reduce global communication, global trade and such. If we do create a "new internet" it should be decentralized as much as possible, nearly untraceable and fully global (no Geolocation-IP address based discrimination), however, governments do not like us to exercise any freedoms they have on paper and corporations want to maximize profits, so this will never happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul .
For one , it will create a -huge- amount of waste in a short period of time , for another , it will not be entirely global , corporations , governments , etc will aim to reduce global communication , global trade and such .
If we do create a " new internet " it should be decentralized as much as possible , nearly untraceable and fully global ( no Geolocation-IP address based discrimination ) , however , governments do not like us to exercise any freedoms they have on paper and corporations want to maximize profits , so this will never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul.
For one, it will create a -huge- amount of waste in a short period of time, for another, it will not be entirely global, corporations, governments, etc will aim to reduce global communication, global trade and such.
If we do create a "new internet" it should be decentralized as much as possible, nearly untraceable and fully global (no Geolocation-IP address based discrimination), however, governments do not like us to exercise any freedoms they have on paper and corporations want to maximize profits, so this will never happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943406</id>
	<title>Adoption</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1264681680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wishful thinking. What makes them believe anybody will adopt? The general theme I gather from the Slashdot community is that the preexisting design aesthetic (if you can even call it that) for the internet is actually pretty solid, its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch. The IPv6 bandwagon isn't about to collapse from all its passengers now, is it?<br> <br>The folks who generally engineered the internet had decent enough foresight from a technical standpoint. It is the BIG Telco's and all their 'peering', 'filtering', 'throttling', and combined unwillingness to invest in new infrastructure that puts the choke hold on our tubes (pun intended). Do you expect the major Tier 1's to drop billions of $$$ to adopt, 'cuz I sure as hell don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wishful thinking .
What makes them believe anybody will adopt ?
The general theme I gather from the Slashdot community is that the preexisting design aesthetic ( if you can even call it that ) for the internet is actually pretty solid , its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch .
The IPv6 bandwagon is n't about to collapse from all its passengers now , is it ?
The folks who generally engineered the internet had decent enough foresight from a technical standpoint .
It is the BIG Telco 's and all their 'peering ' , 'filtering ' , 'throttling ' , and combined unwillingness to invest in new infrastructure that puts the choke hold on our tubes ( pun intended ) .
Do you expect the major Tier 1 's to drop billions of $ $ $ to adopt , 'cuz I sure as hell do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wishful thinking.
What makes them believe anybody will adopt?
The general theme I gather from the Slashdot community is that the preexisting design aesthetic (if you can even call it that) for the internet is actually pretty solid, its just the implementation that people &amp; organizations botch.
The IPv6 bandwagon isn't about to collapse from all its passengers now, is it?
The folks who generally engineered the internet had decent enough foresight from a technical standpoint.
It is the BIG Telco's and all their 'peering', 'filtering', 'throttling', and combined unwillingness to invest in new infrastructure that puts the choke hold on our tubes (pun intended).
Do you expect the major Tier 1's to drop billions of $$$ to adopt, 'cuz I sure as hell don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</id>
	<title>Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?</p><p>Uh, can I opt-out of the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the internet of the future is n't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information ? Uh , can I opt-out of the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?Uh, can I opt-out of the future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943596</id>
	<title>that won't happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think. I can't see China accepting anypart of a future internet they don't have significant control of. We could see the rise of a highly distributed internet There would still be global networks, but under different control and not interlinked. What I would like to see is internet 2.0 being a slow transition over to ipv6 address space. What I'd really like to see is people setting up their own private network  - using whatever protocol they want - communities. Decentralization would be healthy I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think .
I ca n't see China accepting anypart of a future internet they do n't have significant control of .
We could see the rise of a highly distributed internet There would still be global networks , but under different control and not interlinked .
What I would like to see is internet 2.0 being a slow transition over to ipv6 address space .
What I 'd really like to see is people setting up their own private network - using whatever protocol they want - communities .
Decentralization would be healthy I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think.
I can't see China accepting anypart of a future internet they don't have significant control of.
We could see the rise of a highly distributed internet There would still be global networks, but under different control and not interlinked.
What I would like to see is internet 2.0 being a slow transition over to ipv6 address space.
What I'd really like to see is people setting up their own private network  - using whatever protocol they want - communities.
Decentralization would be healthy I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943022</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264679640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Safe For<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Safe For ...what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Safe For ...what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943784</id>
	<title>IPv6 + multicast</title>
	<author>olivierva</author>
	<datestamp>1264683840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting IPv6 and multicasting work would massively stimulate the creation of new tech/apps, but I assume these two are not considered 'technical innovations' anymore because most of us already know, for at least 10 years, this needs to happen</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting IPv6 and multicasting work would massively stimulate the creation of new tech/apps , but I assume these two are not considered 'technical innovations ' anymore because most of us already know , for at least 10 years , this needs to happen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting IPv6 and multicasting work would massively stimulate the creation of new tech/apps, but I assume these two are not considered 'technical innovations' anymore because most of us already know, for at least 10 years, this needs to happen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942730</id>
	<title>I HAVE AN IDEA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's restructure everything to be "IPinfinite"...</p><p>We will never, ever, ever, EVER, run out of Address space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's restructure everything to be " IPinfinite " ...We will never , ever , ever , EVER , run out of Address space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's restructure everything to be "IPinfinite"...We will never, ever, ever, EVER, run out of Address space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30947026</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1264757580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Very likely not, since free exchange of information threatens both political and financial interests, so they both want it shut down. The only way I see it as surviving is if it's converted to a swarm model from the current carrier model - that is, rather than talking to your ISP who can censor what you see or cut you off altogether, your equipment talks to your neighbour's equipment, which talks to his enighbours equipment and so forth.</p><p>Open access points represent a step towards that model, which makes them a threat to powers that be, and is why they are opposed by them.</p><blockquote><div><p>Uh, can I opt-out of the future?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Sure, just die. That means that you don't <em>have</em> to take part in Brave New World, which makes it all okay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the internet of the future is n't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information ?
Very likely not , since free exchange of information threatens both political and financial interests , so they both want it shut down .
The only way I see it as surviving is if it 's converted to a swarm model from the current carrier model - that is , rather than talking to your ISP who can censor what you see or cut you off altogether , your equipment talks to your neighbour 's equipment , which talks to his enighbours equipment and so forth.Open access points represent a step towards that model , which makes them a threat to powers that be , and is why they are opposed by them.Uh , can I opt-out of the future ?
Sure , just die .
That means that you do n't have to take part in Brave New World , which makes it all okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the internet of the future isn't going to be a general-purpose protocol-agnostic world-wide data network for sharing and communication of information?
Very likely not, since free exchange of information threatens both political and financial interests, so they both want it shut down.
The only way I see it as surviving is if it's converted to a swarm model from the current carrier model - that is, rather than talking to your ISP who can censor what you see or cut you off altogether, your equipment talks to your neighbour's equipment, which talks to his enighbours equipment and so forth.Open access points represent a step towards that model, which makes them a threat to powers that be, and is why they are opposed by them.Uh, can I opt-out of the future?
Sure, just die.
That means that you don't have to take part in Brave New World, which makes it all okay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814</id>
	<title>Time to disolve NSF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education, which is broken rather than Internet which isn't not so broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education , which is broken rather than Internet which is n't not so broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is much better use for 30M such as spending it on education, which is broken rather than Internet which isn't not so broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044</id>
	<title>Re:I can solve this easy</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264679760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru, but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.</p><p>If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac, one of two things would happen. Either<br>A) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes. And yes, there are some, so don't try and deny that. Or<br>B) Macs, being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy (opening more holes) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.</p><p>And if everyone were using Linux, it would be just the same as before. Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.</p><p>You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru , but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac , one of two things would happen .
EitherA ) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes .
And yes , there are some , so do n't try and deny that .
OrB ) Macs , being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy ( opening more holes ) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.And if everyone were using Linux , it would be just the same as before .
Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you are an arrogant Mac user or a Pompous Linux Guru, but you have to realize that the vulnerabilties in Windows do not make the FUNDAMENTAL vulnerabilities in other systems go away.If Microsoft folded up shop tomorrow and the only Machine you could get at a big store was a Mac, one of two things would happen.
EitherA) More and more viruses would pop up for Macintoshes.
And yes, there are some, so don't try and deny that.
OrB) Macs, being locked into a very specific hardware set would have to adopt a more open policy (opening more holes) or It would cause some serious stagnation in the producers of other computer parts - completely ruining all competition and slowing all progress.And if everyone were using Linux, it would be just the same as before.
Everyone would be Sudo'ing this and that and hackers will exploit any setup the user uses to make their PC Easier.You need someone like Microsoft to be the scapegoat for the idiot masses so that more secure systems can even exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945002</id>
	<title>Auto-filtering</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264692720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've invented an extension to DNS that automatically prevents accidental access to any web page that includes the term "game changing." I think it deserves a couple mil at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've invented an extension to DNS that automatically prevents accidental access to any web page that includes the term " game changing .
" I think it deserves a couple mil at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've invented an extension to DNS that automatically prevents accidental access to any web page that includes the term "game changing.
" I think it deserves a couple mil at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944350</id>
	<title>Re:Best to keep doing patches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anonymously as I am working on one of the projects.</p><p>"Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul"</p><p>Speaking for my project only, small improvements IS the entire point; leverage today's infrastructure to achieve better $performance\_metrics. Sure, we want applications and devices to have security/trust/nachos, but leverage as much existing hardware and protocols as possible. For sure, the one thing we do not want is a "separate" internet. Those that want segmentation can simply refer to the fragmented social networking apps to see why this is a bad idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Don't like social networking? Fine, drive from hawaii to CA by car (only).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously as I am working on one of the projects .
" Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul " Speaking for my project only , small improvements IS the entire point ; leverage today 's infrastructure to achieve better $ performance \ _metrics .
Sure , we want applications and devices to have security/trust/nachos , but leverage as much existing hardware and protocols as possible .
For sure , the one thing we do not want is a " separate " internet .
Those that want segmentation can simply refer to the fragmented social networking apps to see why this is a bad idea .Do n't like social networking ?
Fine , drive from hawaii to CA by car ( only ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously as I am working on one of the projects.
"Its a lot better for the world as a whole if we keep doing small improvements to the internet rather than a total overhaul"Speaking for my project only, small improvements IS the entire point; leverage today's infrastructure to achieve better $performance\_metrics.
Sure, we want applications and devices to have security/trust/nachos, but leverage as much existing hardware and protocols as possible.
For sure, the one thing we do not want is a "separate" internet.
Those that want segmentation can simply refer to the fragmented social networking apps to see why this is a bad idea .Don't like social networking?
Fine, drive from hawaii to CA by car (only).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945150</id>
	<title>Re:Time to disolve NSF?</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1264694100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't waste it on education. $30M is much better spent fighting hunger.
And working for world peace. Spend the $30M fighting hunger and working for world peace.
And manned space exploration. Spend the $30M fighting hunger, working for world peace, and manned space exploration.</p><p>
I'll come in again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't waste it on education .
$ 30M is much better spent fighting hunger .
And working for world peace .
Spend the $ 30M fighting hunger and working for world peace .
And manned space exploration .
Spend the $ 30M fighting hunger , working for world peace , and manned space exploration .
I 'll come in again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't waste it on education.
$30M is much better spent fighting hunger.
And working for world peace.
Spend the $30M fighting hunger and working for world peace.
And manned space exploration.
Spend the $30M fighting hunger, working for world peace, and manned space exploration.
I'll come in again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30949056</id>
	<title>Internet2 again?</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1264779240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.internet2.edu/" title="internet2.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.internet2.edu/</a> [internet2.edu] - yeah *that* worked...</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.internet2.edu/ [ internet2.edu ] - yeah * that * worked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.internet2.edu/ [internet2.edu] - yeah *that* worked...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944316</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>antirelic</author>
	<datestamp>1264687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought IPv6 was suppose to offer the solution? What ever happened to "internet2"? I remember maybe a year or so ago NSF dumping money for research into something identical to the above.</p><p>Why does NSF (a political entity) have to dole out money to solve a problem that doesnt really exist. What I mean by that, is that there are many companies out there coming up with ideas (both good and bad) at dealing with bandwidth issues. The good ideas will make a fortune for whomever figures it out. If some slash dot lurker figures out a better way to network and decides to develop and implement the solution, then they are going to get rich. I can recall a search company that started out small, with no government money, that today has gone a long way to "solve" the obscurity issue pondered about in the early 90's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought IPv6 was suppose to offer the solution ?
What ever happened to " internet2 " ?
I remember maybe a year or so ago NSF dumping money for research into something identical to the above.Why does NSF ( a political entity ) have to dole out money to solve a problem that doesnt really exist .
What I mean by that , is that there are many companies out there coming up with ideas ( both good and bad ) at dealing with bandwidth issues .
The good ideas will make a fortune for whomever figures it out .
If some slash dot lurker figures out a better way to network and decides to develop and implement the solution , then they are going to get rich .
I can recall a search company that started out small , with no government money , that today has gone a long way to " solve " the obscurity issue pondered about in the early 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought IPv6 was suppose to offer the solution?
What ever happened to "internet2"?
I remember maybe a year or so ago NSF dumping money for research into something identical to the above.Why does NSF (a political entity) have to dole out money to solve a problem that doesnt really exist.
What I mean by that, is that there are many companies out there coming up with ideas (both good and bad) at dealing with bandwidth issues.
The good ideas will make a fortune for whomever figures it out.
If some slash dot lurker figures out a better way to network and decides to develop and implement the solution, then they are going to get rich.
I can recall a search company that started out small, with no government money, that today has gone a long way to "solve" the obscurity issue pondered about in the early 90's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945590</id>
	<title>They have great timing</title>
	<author>wurp</author>
	<datestamp>1264699320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already started working on the next version of the internet:<br>* making server based applications (like email and web apps) serverless (and free to host)<br>* making storage more accessible from anywhere<br>* making network apps scalable by default<br>* providing single sign-on across the whole net<br>* providing infrastructure to authenticate all messages</p><p>Read more at <a href="http://persistnet.pbworks.com/" title="pbworks.com">http://persistnet.pbworks.com/</a> [pbworks.com].  Unfortunately a significant amount of the work is still in our staging area being prepped to be made public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already started working on the next version of the internet : * making server based applications ( like email and web apps ) serverless ( and free to host ) * making storage more accessible from anywhere * making network apps scalable by default * providing single sign-on across the whole net * providing infrastructure to authenticate all messagesRead more at http : //persistnet.pbworks.com/ [ pbworks.com ] .
Unfortunately a significant amount of the work is still in our staging area being prepped to be made public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already started working on the next version of the internet:* making server based applications (like email and web apps) serverless (and free to host)* making storage more accessible from anywhere* making network apps scalable by default* providing single sign-on across the whole net* providing infrastructure to authenticate all messagesRead more at http://persistnet.pbworks.com/ [pbworks.com].
Unfortunately a significant amount of the work is still in our staging area being prepped to be made public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822</id>
	<title>I can solve this easy</title>
	<author>antifoidulus</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> through new security, reliability and collaborative applications. </i> <br> <br>
No need to create new tech to do that, I can increase the security, reliability, and the collaborative potential of the internet easily, just get rid of Windows.  There, can I have my $30 mil now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>through new security , reliability and collaborative applications .
No need to create new tech to do that , I can increase the security , reliability , and the collaborative potential of the internet easily , just get rid of Windows .
There , can I have my $ 30 mil now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> through new security, reliability and collaborative applications.
No need to create new tech to do that, I can increase the security, reliability, and the collaborative potential of the internet easily, just get rid of Windows.
There, can I have my $30 mil now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942836</id>
	<title>This is nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But honestly, with the US so far behind other industrialized nations in broadband quality and penetration, shouldn't this be promoted by Japan or South Korea? Who cares about the super duper better intertubes if you're still stuck at the 1.2mbps downstream dictated by the local suckage cable mini-monopoly?</p><p>I'm all for this type of thing, I really am. But fix the basement before you go adding a new chimney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But honestly , with the US so far behind other industrialized nations in broadband quality and penetration , should n't this be promoted by Japan or South Korea ?
Who cares about the super duper better intertubes if you 're still stuck at the 1.2mbps downstream dictated by the local suckage cable mini-monopoly ? I 'm all for this type of thing , I really am .
But fix the basement before you go adding a new chimney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But honestly, with the US so far behind other industrialized nations in broadband quality and penetration, shouldn't this be promoted by Japan or South Korea?
Who cares about the super duper better intertubes if you're still stuck at the 1.2mbps downstream dictated by the local suckage cable mini-monopoly?I'm all for this type of thing, I really am.
But fix the basement before you go adding a new chimney.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943656</id>
	<title>Re:Time to disolve NSF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring the fact that education is horribly broken at the moment, 30M is a ludicrously tiny amount compared to the truckload of spending in other places.</p><p>Hell, that's a handful of spare change to some of the USA's idiotic expenditures!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the fact that education is horribly broken at the moment , 30M is a ludicrously tiny amount compared to the truckload of spending in other places.Hell , that 's a handful of spare change to some of the USA 's idiotic expenditures !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the fact that education is horribly broken at the moment, 30M is a ludicrously tiny amount compared to the truckload of spending in other places.Hell, that's a handful of spare change to some of the USA's idiotic expenditures!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944590</id>
	<title>Re:I can solve this easy</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1264689360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security has to be addressed both at the OS level and at the network architecture level.  We can't continue to rely on the good behavior of all of the actors on the Internet.  Even if you make all operating systems secure and well-behaved, what's to stop someone from writing something new?
<br> <br>
Getting rid of Windows eliminates an entire class of problems, of which network security is NOT one.  When I'm bored at work and decide to portscan the spammers, guess which port I see open.  Hint: SSH.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security has to be addressed both at the OS level and at the network architecture level .
We ca n't continue to rely on the good behavior of all of the actors on the Internet .
Even if you make all operating systems secure and well-behaved , what 's to stop someone from writing something new ?
Getting rid of Windows eliminates an entire class of problems , of which network security is NOT one .
When I 'm bored at work and decide to portscan the spammers , guess which port I see open .
Hint : SSH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security has to be addressed both at the OS level and at the network architecture level.
We can't continue to rely on the good behavior of all of the actors on the Internet.
Even if you make all operating systems secure and well-behaved, what's to stop someone from writing something new?
Getting rid of Windows eliminates an entire class of problems, of which network security is NOT one.
When I'm bored at work and decide to portscan the spammers, guess which port I see open.
Hint: SSH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943592</id>
	<title>why spend all that cash?</title>
	<author>mt1955</author>
	<datestamp>1264682820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it be cheaper just to call Al Gore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be cheaper just to call Al Gore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be cheaper just to call Al Gore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943922</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, I'll take a couple hundred grand for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are clueless. This doesn't make sense for the average consumer or the telecom industry. Stuff that titillates wannabe network engineers, nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are clueless .
This does n't make sense for the average consumer or the telecom industry .
Stuff that titillates wannabe network engineers , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are clueless.
This doesn't make sense for the average consumer or the telecom industry.
Stuff that titillates wannabe network engineers, nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945794</id>
	<title>Re:I can solve this easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forget one thing...<br>Microsoft was extremely late to the whole networking party. Unix machines were sending packets over the arpanet before BillyG got ahold of an altair.  Microsoft ignored TCP/IP up until 15 years ago.  Despite all the things they have said, it has been shown time and time again that they do not do complete rewrites of their codebase.  There are bugs in win7 that have been poking around since the first version of NT. 9x series security was a total joke and NT's is mediocre. face it, the core that is windows has so many holes in it that nothing short of going to Singularity/Midori will solve.  Even then, certain questionable design practices will still bite them in the ass (like the browser and file explorer sharing the same rendering engine)</p><p>OSX and linux don't have nearly as many problems, not because of userbase or being open source or anything like that.  They are superior because they are based on a mature design paradigm that put security and the network first.  This explains why in spite of being the number one operating system in the server, embedded, and supercomputing markets, linux has had at most 10 viruses ever made for it, and none of those were zero day.  This compared to windows that can't seem to go at least three weeks without a massive zero day virus attack.</p><p>microsoft can do better, they have shown this with their research division.  they just have to pull the trigger on deprecating win32.  once its pure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, they will have incredible security.  maybe use virtual machine software they have been sitting on to pull an apple.  also gives them the advantage to run any software on any processor architecture. But they won't, and thats why windows will always be a buggy piece of crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forget one thing...Microsoft was extremely late to the whole networking party .
Unix machines were sending packets over the arpanet before BillyG got ahold of an altair .
Microsoft ignored TCP/IP up until 15 years ago .
Despite all the things they have said , it has been shown time and time again that they do not do complete rewrites of their codebase .
There are bugs in win7 that have been poking around since the first version of NT .
9x series security was a total joke and NT 's is mediocre .
face it , the core that is windows has so many holes in it that nothing short of going to Singularity/Midori will solve .
Even then , certain questionable design practices will still bite them in the ass ( like the browser and file explorer sharing the same rendering engine ) OSX and linux do n't have nearly as many problems , not because of userbase or being open source or anything like that .
They are superior because they are based on a mature design paradigm that put security and the network first .
This explains why in spite of being the number one operating system in the server , embedded , and supercomputing markets , linux has had at most 10 viruses ever made for it , and none of those were zero day .
This compared to windows that ca n't seem to go at least three weeks without a massive zero day virus attack.microsoft can do better , they have shown this with their research division .
they just have to pull the trigger on deprecating win32 .
once its pure .net , they will have incredible security .
maybe use virtual machine software they have been sitting on to pull an apple .
also gives them the advantage to run any software on any processor architecture .
But they wo n't , and thats why windows will always be a buggy piece of crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forget one thing...Microsoft was extremely late to the whole networking party.
Unix machines were sending packets over the arpanet before BillyG got ahold of an altair.
Microsoft ignored TCP/IP up until 15 years ago.
Despite all the things they have said, it has been shown time and time again that they do not do complete rewrites of their codebase.
There are bugs in win7 that have been poking around since the first version of NT.
9x series security was a total joke and NT's is mediocre.
face it, the core that is windows has so many holes in it that nothing short of going to Singularity/Midori will solve.
Even then, certain questionable design practices will still bite them in the ass (like the browser and file explorer sharing the same rendering engine)OSX and linux don't have nearly as many problems, not because of userbase or being open source or anything like that.
They are superior because they are based on a mature design paradigm that put security and the network first.
This explains why in spite of being the number one operating system in the server, embedded, and supercomputing markets, linux has had at most 10 viruses ever made for it, and none of those were zero day.
This compared to windows that can't seem to go at least three weeks without a massive zero day virus attack.microsoft can do better, they have shown this with their research division.
they just have to pull the trigger on deprecating win32.
once its pure .net, they will have incredible security.
maybe use virtual machine software they have been sitting on to pull an apple.
also gives them the advantage to run any software on any processor architecture.
But they won't, and thats why windows will always be a buggy piece of crap</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942796</id>
	<title>Step 1:</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264678740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Abolish Flash, immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abolish Flash , immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abolish Flash, immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945724</id>
	<title>Re:Likely to be different?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides, for security the LAST thing you want to be identified by is your connections. If a new internet is to have any chance of being adopted, it must of necessity include the ability use the internet while perserving anonymity and privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , for security the LAST thing you want to be identified by is your connections .
If a new internet is to have any chance of being adopted , it must of necessity include the ability use the internet while perserving anonymity and privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, for security the LAST thing you want to be identified by is your connections.
If a new internet is to have any chance of being adopted, it must of necessity include the ability use the internet while perserving anonymity and privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943204</id>
	<title>A series of tubes!</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1264680540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait, somebody already took that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , somebody already took that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, somebody already took that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944684</id>
	<title>It's easy...</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1264689960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just implement RFC 3514
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514</a> [ietf.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just implement RFC 3514 http : //tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514 [ ietf.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just implement RFC 3514
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514 [ietf.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30949434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30947026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2220234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30949434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30947026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30944266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30946726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30943922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2220234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30942836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2220234.30945838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
