<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_028250</id>
	<title>US Missile Defense Test Fails</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265116200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>KingRobot sends news that a recent <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/01/gmd\_countermeasure\_kill\_flop/">test of a US missile defense system has failed</a>. The test of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense interceptor apparently had a problem with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based\_X-band\_Radar">sea-based X-band radar</a>. Both the target missile, launched from the Pacific, and the interceptor, launched from California, performed as expected. <i>"Yesterday's test was intended to quell doubters of the entire missile-defense approach, with the target missile deploying countermeasures. Critics of the GMD programme say that tests thus far, which have not included such spoilers, have been too kind to the intercept tech. The [military] isn't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster' of warhead(s) and decoys, or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KingRobot sends news that a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed .
The test of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense interceptor apparently had a problem with the sea-based X-band radar .
Both the target missile , launched from the Pacific , and the interceptor , launched from California , performed as expected .
" Yesterday 's test was intended to quell doubters of the entire missile-defense approach , with the target missile deploying countermeasures .
Critics of the GMD programme say that tests thus far , which have not included such spoilers , have been too kind to the intercept tech .
The [ military ] is n't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster ' of warhead ( s ) and decoys , or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KingRobot sends news that a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed.
The test of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense interceptor apparently had a problem with the sea-based X-band radar.
Both the target missile, launched from the Pacific, and the interceptor, launched from California, performed as expected.
"Yesterday's test was intended to quell doubters of the entire missile-defense approach, with the target missile deploying countermeasures.
Critics of the GMD programme say that tests thus far, which have not included such spoilers, have been too kind to the intercept tech.
The [military] isn't disclosing whether the intercepting kill vehicle had simply failed to reach the 'threat cluster' of warhead(s) and decoys, or whether it had reached the cluster but hit a countermeasure rather than the actual target.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996482</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be suprised if Patriot has shot down more friendly units than enemy missiles. See here:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly\_fire#2003\_invasion\_of\_Iraq" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly\_fire#2003\_invasion\_of\_Iraq</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>That's one US F18 and one British Tornado in a single war alone, vs. how many missile threats protected against? I'm not sure if it had any friendly fire hits in earlier wars.</p><p>I'm intrigued to know if there's better potential in kinetic weapons like this:</p><p><a href="http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html" title="military.com">http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html</a> [military.com]</p><p>I'm intrigued to know how effective countermeasures would actually be against a mach 8 dumb but accurate projectile? As I understand it the fastest missile in the world is a Russian ICBM at around 10,800mph, which still leaves this mach 8 projectile (~6000mph) a little on the slow side, but would it be enough to take out such an incoming threat still?</p><p>Of course, then there's laser tech, but these rail guns seem to be a bit further ahead in the technology game than they are in terms of production level feasibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be suprised if Patriot has shot down more friendly units than enemy missiles .
See here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly \ _fire # 2003 \ _invasion \ _of \ _Iraq [ wikipedia.org ] That 's one US F18 and one British Tornado in a single war alone , vs. how many missile threats protected against ?
I 'm not sure if it had any friendly fire hits in earlier wars.I 'm intrigued to know if there 's better potential in kinetic weapons like this : http : //www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html [ military.com ] I 'm intrigued to know how effective countermeasures would actually be against a mach 8 dumb but accurate projectile ?
As I understand it the fastest missile in the world is a Russian ICBM at around 10,800mph , which still leaves this mach 8 projectile ( ~ 6000mph ) a little on the slow side , but would it be enough to take out such an incoming threat still ? Of course , then there 's laser tech , but these rail guns seem to be a bit further ahead in the technology game than they are in terms of production level feasibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be suprised if Patriot has shot down more friendly units than enemy missiles.
See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly\_fire#2003\_invasion\_of\_Iraq [wikipedia.org]That's one US F18 and one British Tornado in a single war alone, vs. how many missile threats protected against?
I'm not sure if it had any friendly fire hits in earlier wars.I'm intrigued to know if there's better potential in kinetic weapons like this:http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html [military.com]I'm intrigued to know how effective countermeasures would actually be against a mach 8 dumb but accurate projectile?
As I understand it the fastest missile in the world is a Russian ICBM at around 10,800mph, which still leaves this mach 8 projectile (~6000mph) a little on the slow side, but would it be enough to take out such an incoming threat still?Of course, then there's laser tech, but these rail guns seem to be a bit further ahead in the technology game than they are in terms of production level feasibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998746</id>
	<title>China just had a successful test</title>
	<author>hnjjz</author>
	<datestamp>1265138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just three weeks before this US test, China tested a similar mid-course missile defense system with a successful intercept of the target missile:

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953233,00.html?xid=rss-topstories" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953233,00.html?xid=rss-topstories</a> [time.com] <p><div class="quote"><p>While the Pentagon said it had received no prior notice of China's missile test, it added that U.S. space-based sensors "detected two geographically separated missile-launch events" leading to an "exo-atmospheric collision."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just three weeks before this US test , China tested a similar mid-course missile defense system with a successful intercept of the target missile : http : //www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953233,00.html ? xid = rss-topstories [ time.com ] While the Pentagon said it had received no prior notice of China 's missile test , it added that U.S. space-based sensors " detected two geographically separated missile-launch events " leading to an " exo-atmospheric collision .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just three weeks before this US test, China tested a similar mid-course missile defense system with a successful intercept of the target missile:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953233,00.html?xid=rss-topstories [time.com] While the Pentagon said it had received no prior notice of China's missile test, it added that U.S. space-based sensors "detected two geographically separated missile-launch events" leading to an "exo-atmospheric collision.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31007714</id>
	<title>Re:Failed test or failed missile?</title>
	<author>simoncpu was here</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insightfully funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightfully funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightfully funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996514</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1265130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems. Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans. So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own. Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.</p></div><p>I know you were just joking, but I'm not sure if there is reason to believe that the Russian "spiral" missile test was a failure. Just a couple of days after the incident above Norway, the exact same thing happened over Moscow with an older type of ICBM (I can't find any links right now, Google just keeps giving me the Norway story). It's either an unbelievable coincidence, or things are not quite as they seem...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems .
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians , Chinese , and North Koreans .
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems , they will make even more mistakes than we did , and their rockets will fail all on their own .
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.I know you were just joking , but I 'm not sure if there is reason to believe that the Russian " spiral " missile test was a failure .
Just a couple of days after the incident above Norway , the exact same thing happened over Moscow with an older type of ICBM ( I ca n't find any links right now , Google just keeps giving me the Norway story ) .
It 's either an unbelievable coincidence , or things are not quite as they seem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems.
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans.
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own.
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.I know you were just joking, but I'm not sure if there is reason to believe that the Russian "spiral" missile test was a failure.
Just a couple of days after the incident above Norway, the exact same thing happened over Moscow with an older type of ICBM (I can't find any links right now, Google just keeps giving me the Norway story).
It's either an unbelievable coincidence, or things are not quite as they seem...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998870</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the 10B a month in Iraq on top of regular expenditure or is some part of that already part of the 685B?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009\_United\_States\_federal\_budget" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009\_United\_States\_federal\_budget</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Looks to me like total social spending was on the order of 1.6 Trillion while all other categories, including the entire DOD budget was 1.2 Trillion. The actual DOD line item was 515B with an additional 145B line item for GWoT. 515 + 145 = 660B.</p><p>Now factor in the appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial\_cost\_of\_the\_Iraq\_War" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial\_cost\_of\_the\_Iraq\_War</a> [wikipedia.org] (2.4T by 2017 including interest)</p><p>So we end up with 2.4T + (660*B x 10) or 9B vs (1.6T x 10) or 16T.</p><p>Even using the HIGHEST estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan costs results in Social Spending outpacing military spending by almost a factor of 2.</p><p>Since you were an offensive jackass I'm going to be one too. Get a clue moron, defense spending is nowhere close to the largest part of the U.S. expenditures. Social spending is an entitlement program and it acts like one.</p><p>* = Combined DOD and GWOT budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 10B a month in Iraq on top of regular expenditure or is some part of that already part of the 685B ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009 \ _United \ _States \ _federal \ _budget [ wikipedia.org ] Looks to me like total social spending was on the order of 1.6 Trillion while all other categories , including the entire DOD budget was 1.2 Trillion .
The actual DOD line item was 515B with an additional 145B line item for GWoT .
515 + 145 = 660B.Now factor in the appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial \ _cost \ _of \ _the \ _Iraq \ _War [ wikipedia.org ] ( 2.4T by 2017 including interest ) So we end up with 2.4T + ( 660 * B x 10 ) or 9B vs ( 1.6T x 10 ) or 16T.Even using the HIGHEST estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan costs results in Social Spending outpacing military spending by almost a factor of 2.Since you were an offensive jackass I 'm going to be one too .
Get a clue moron , defense spending is nowhere close to the largest part of the U.S. expenditures. Social spending is an entitlement program and it acts like one .
* = Combined DOD and GWOT budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 10B a month in Iraq on top of regular expenditure or is some part of that already part of the 685B?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009\_United\_States\_federal\_budget [wikipedia.org]Looks to me like total social spending was on the order of 1.6 Trillion while all other categories, including the entire DOD budget was 1.2 Trillion.
The actual DOD line item was 515B with an additional 145B line item for GWoT.
515 + 145 = 660B.Now factor in the appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial\_cost\_of\_the\_Iraq\_War [wikipedia.org] (2.4T by 2017 including interest)So we end up with 2.4T + (660*B x 10) or 9B vs (1.6T x 10) or 16T.Even using the HIGHEST estimates for Iraq and Afghanistan costs results in Social Spending outpacing military spending by almost a factor of 2.Since you were an offensive jackass I'm going to be one too.
Get a clue moron, defense spending is nowhere close to the largest part of the U.S. expenditures. Social spending is an entitlement program and it acts like one.
* = Combined DOD and GWOT budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</id>
	<title>No surprise, really</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is exactly one instance of missile defense working that I'm aware of, namely combating Iraqi Scud missiles back around 1993.</p><p>But the important thing to realize about this version of missile defense (and its predecessor, Star Wars) is that they don't need to work to accomplish their real purpose, which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is exactly one instance of missile defense working that I 'm aware of , namely combating Iraqi Scud missiles back around 1993.But the important thing to realize about this version of missile defense ( and its predecessor , Star Wars ) is that they do n't need to work to accomplish their real purpose , which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is exactly one instance of missile defense working that I'm aware of, namely combating Iraqi Scud missiles back around 1993.But the important thing to realize about this version of missile defense (and its predecessor, Star Wars) is that they don't need to work to accomplish their real purpose, which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s, but the tech wasn't goon enough then.  It was revised in the 60s, and Macnamara announced I think in 68 they were starting an AMD program.  Reagan started the Star Wars program in the 80s as a means to force the Soviet Union to outspend its production capability and bankrupt itself, all the while we were spending less than it looked like.  He had no intention of actually putting lasers in space, etc.  Turns out he was right.  The Cold War arms build up bankrupted the SU.  Guess he was smarter than he looked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s , but the tech was n't goon enough then .
It was revised in the 60s , and Macnamara announced I think in 68 they were starting an AMD program .
Reagan started the Star Wars program in the 80s as a means to force the Soviet Union to outspend its production capability and bankrupt itself , all the while we were spending less than it looked like .
He had no intention of actually putting lasers in space , etc .
Turns out he was right .
The Cold War arms build up bankrupted the SU .
Guess he was smarter than he looked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s, but the tech wasn't goon enough then.
It was revised in the 60s, and Macnamara announced I think in 68 they were starting an AMD program.
Reagan started the Star Wars program in the 80s as a means to force the Soviet Union to outspend its production capability and bankrupt itself, all the while we were spending less than it looked like.
He had no intention of actually putting lasers in space, etc.
Turns out he was right.
The Cold War arms build up bankrupted the SU.
Guess he was smarter than he looked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998954</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An ex-movie star fake cowboy who discovered late in life that he was a genius.  Star wars was just a convenient excuse to enrich his So-Cal military corp constituency.  Easy to ignore the prior 30 years of USSR cold war spending and their Afghani quagmire taking their toll.  Just a little lag time between the failure of the USSR and the failure of the USA, and for the same reason.  Nothing more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ex-movie star fake cowboy who discovered late in life that he was a genius .
Star wars was just a convenient excuse to enrich his So-Cal military corp constituency .
Easy to ignore the prior 30 years of USSR cold war spending and their Afghani quagmire taking their toll .
Just a little lag time between the failure of the USSR and the failure of the USA , and for the same reason .
Nothing more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ex-movie star fake cowboy who discovered late in life that he was a genius.
Star wars was just a convenient excuse to enrich his So-Cal military corp constituency.
Easy to ignore the prior 30 years of USSR cold war spending and their Afghani quagmire taking their toll.
Just a little lag time between the failure of the USSR and the failure of the USA, and for the same reason.
Nothing more...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048</id>
	<title>It will never work.</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1265125500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the equivalent of shooting a bullet out of the air, with another bullet.</p><p>And that's just not possible.</p><p>This whole idea should never ever have passed the first smell test. The only question people should ask now is "Who is benefitting from this?"</p><p>Any project with a budget as large as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, the amount that's been wasted on this, needs to be able show proof of concept, set targets, meet them, and have a fixed deadline. Otherwise, you're just pissing away good money after bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the equivalent of shooting a bullet out of the air , with another bullet.And that 's just not possible.This whole idea should never ever have passed the first smell test .
The only question people should ask now is " Who is benefitting from this ?
" Any project with a budget as large as ... well , the amount that 's been wasted on this , needs to be able show proof of concept , set targets , meet them , and have a fixed deadline .
Otherwise , you 're just pissing away good money after bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the equivalent of shooting a bullet out of the air, with another bullet.And that's just not possible.This whole idea should never ever have passed the first smell test.
The only question people should ask now is "Who is benefitting from this?
"Any project with a budget as large as ... well, the amount that's been wasted on this, needs to be able show proof of concept, set targets, meet them, and have a fixed deadline.
Otherwise, you're just pissing away good money after bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997018</id>
	<title>Re:you can't defeat iranian missiles with this</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, is this like that Star Trek episode, where if the enemy photoshops your city being nuked, then you have to report yourself as a casualty and be executed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , is this like that Star Trek episode , where if the enemy photoshops your city being nuked , then you have to report yourself as a casualty and be executed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, is this like that Star Trek episode, where if the enemy photoshops your city being nuked, then you have to report yourself as a casualty and be executed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994354</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>SirTicksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1265122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...this kind of system is fscking *hard*,...


Perhaps they should not power it off so abruptly next time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this kind of system is fscking * hard * ,.. . Perhaps they should not power it off so abruptly next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this kind of system is fscking *hard*,...


Perhaps they should not power it off so abruptly next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168</id>
	<title>Failed test or failed missile?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the test fail, or the missle? The difference is that a failed test means you don't get any useful information about the device under test, whereas a successful test means that you found out whatever you wanted to know about the device under test.

</p><p>Example: a test to determine whether a cellphone fails when immersed in water. If you find that your water has been shut off, you have a failed test, because you can't even try immersing the phone in water. If your water works and you immerse the phone and it stops working, the test is successful and your result is that the phone failed. If it still works, then you have a successful test and a phone that didn't fail.

</p><p>&lt;/pedant&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the test fail , or the missle ?
The difference is that a failed test means you do n't get any useful information about the device under test , whereas a successful test means that you found out whatever you wanted to know about the device under test .
Example : a test to determine whether a cellphone fails when immersed in water .
If you find that your water has been shut off , you have a failed test , because you ca n't even try immersing the phone in water .
If your water works and you immerse the phone and it stops working , the test is successful and your result is that the phone failed .
If it still works , then you have a successful test and a phone that did n't fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the test fail, or the missle?
The difference is that a failed test means you don't get any useful information about the device under test, whereas a successful test means that you found out whatever you wanted to know about the device under test.
Example: a test to determine whether a cellphone fails when immersed in water.
If you find that your water has been shut off, you have a failed test, because you can't even try immersing the phone in water.
If your water works and you immerse the phone and it stops working, the test is successful and your result is that the phone failed.
If it still works, then you have a successful test and a phone that didn't fail.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006670</id>
	<title>Re:Failed test or failed missile?</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1265140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got modded "Insightful" and didn't even RTFA.  The failure mode was in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got modded " Insightful " and did n't even RTFA .
The failure mode was in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got modded "Insightful" and didn't even RTFA.
The failure mode was in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996064</id>
	<title>No really, the thing is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This system has been failing since at least the late 90's (That's when I first started tracking it in the Marine Corps). The few successes it has had have been predefined configurations where they had a known flight path and pre-set intercept path. The entire thing is staged. And what's worse is that it fails even the majority of these staged intercepts.</p><p>People balked when Obama talked about dropping the missile shield in eastern Europe but honestly, these missile defense systems are a joke. They would do squat to improve our security and are costing us billion of dollars as they feed the military complex industry.</p><p>Scrap the system IMO, use the money to help offset the deficit, and the good will of the Russians to compel Iran to drop its uranium refineries.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This system has been failing since at least the late 90 's ( That 's when I first started tracking it in the Marine Corps ) .
The few successes it has had have been predefined configurations where they had a known flight path and pre-set intercept path .
The entire thing is staged .
And what 's worse is that it fails even the majority of these staged intercepts.People balked when Obama talked about dropping the missile shield in eastern Europe but honestly , these missile defense systems are a joke .
They would do squat to improve our security and are costing us billion of dollars as they feed the military complex industry.Scrap the system IMO , use the money to help offset the deficit , and the good will of the Russians to compel Iran to drop its uranium refineries.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system has been failing since at least the late 90's (That's when I first started tracking it in the Marine Corps).
The few successes it has had have been predefined configurations where they had a known flight path and pre-set intercept path.
The entire thing is staged.
And what's worse is that it fails even the majority of these staged intercepts.People balked when Obama talked about dropping the missile shield in eastern Europe but honestly, these missile defense systems are a joke.
They would do squat to improve our security and are costing us billion of dollars as they feed the military complex industry.Scrap the system IMO, use the money to help offset the deficit, and the good will of the Russians to compel Iran to drop its uranium refineries.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997796</id>
	<title>Re:Why it failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Few people know the real story behind this, which is quickly being covered up.  The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update.  As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch, the message "Please wait while Windows installs your updates. You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation."</p></div><p>This was immediately followed by the Blue Screen of Death</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Few people know the real story behind this , which is quickly being covered up .
The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update .
As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch , the message " Please wait while Windows installs your updates .
You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation .
" This was immediately followed by the Blue Screen of Death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few people know the real story behind this, which is quickly being covered up.
The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update.
As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch, the message "Please wait while Windows installs your updates.
You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation.
"This was immediately followed by the Blue Screen of Death
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994890</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.</p></div><p>Even if we ignore that there's no such thing as "free" medical care, it still remains that most people can pay their way for medical care. At least with anti-missile systems, the government does something that can't otherwise be done and it is a lot less waste (by two to three orders of magnitude) than "free" medical care for people who don't need it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.Even if we ignore that there 's no such thing as " free " medical care , it still remains that most people can pay their way for medical care .
At least with anti-missile systems , the government does something that ca n't otherwise be done and it is a lot less waste ( by two to three orders of magnitude ) than " free " medical care for people who do n't need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.Even if we ignore that there's no such thing as "free" medical care, it still remains that most people can pay their way for medical care.
At least with anti-missile systems, the government does something that can't otherwise be done and it is a lot less waste (by two to three orders of magnitude) than "free" medical care for people who don't need it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994134</id>
	<title>Whoopy Doopy</title>
	<author>AgentSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no!</p><p>The government has a glitch with an insanely complex <b>missile system.</b><br>Good to know, but *Yawn* "Film at 11" me and wake me when it's fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no ! The government has a glitch with an insanely complex missile system.Good to know , but * Yawn * " Film at 11 " me and wake me when it 's fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!The government has a glitch with an insanely complex missile system.Good to know, but *Yawn* "Film at 11" me and wake me when it's fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998118</id>
	<title>Re:It will never work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It already has worked in the past. What makes shooting another bullet out of the air impossible and not just hard to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It already has worked in the past .
What makes shooting another bullet out of the air impossible and not just hard to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It already has worked in the past.
What makes shooting another bullet out of the air impossible and not just hard to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998096</id>
	<title>Re:"fails"</title>
	<author>mollog</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truly, it needed to fail, and fail very publicly. If it were to succeed we would end up in a missile/anti-missile arms race. This way, we can publicly claim (again) that the cost of the program is too much and that we're cutting back on the program.<br> <br>

Meanwhile, they move to the next phase of the program - countermeasures for anti-missile systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly , it needed to fail , and fail very publicly .
If it were to succeed we would end up in a missile/anti-missile arms race .
This way , we can publicly claim ( again ) that the cost of the program is too much and that we 're cutting back on the program .
Meanwhile , they move to the next phase of the program - countermeasures for anti-missile systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly, it needed to fail, and fail very publicly.
If it were to succeed we would end up in a missile/anti-missile arms race.
This way, we can publicly claim (again) that the cost of the program is too much and that we're cutting back on the program.
Meanwhile, they move to the next phase of the program - countermeasures for anti-missile systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997822</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265134800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems. Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans. So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own. Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.</p></div><p>I'm not clear why this was modded "funny". It's a viable strategy. Even a completely fake intercept system might work. Imagine if the US spent a few hundred million a year building large concrete pyramids outside every major city (maintenance would be a lot lower since there's not much cost to maintaining a hunk of concrete). Deliberately (through the usual officially unofficial leaks) expose the program as a fake intercept system. Keep building the pyramids. I bet the CIA could keep the conspiracy stories going, especially since there really is a conspiracy going. Everytime someone says "It's just a bunch of stupid pyramids that idiot, President khallow threw up in 2013. There's nothing to see.", the rebuttal would be "But why did they repaint the Omaha one last week? What are they really using those things for? And have you seen the size of the parking lot? They plow that in winter."<br> <br>

Anyone depending on nuclear ballistic missiles would have to consider that maybe those pyramids are a real ballistic defense system now even if they were originally fake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems .
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians , Chinese , and North Koreans .
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems , they will make even more mistakes than we did , and their rockets will fail all on their own .
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.I 'm not clear why this was modded " funny " .
It 's a viable strategy .
Even a completely fake intercept system might work .
Imagine if the US spent a few hundred million a year building large concrete pyramids outside every major city ( maintenance would be a lot lower since there 's not much cost to maintaining a hunk of concrete ) .
Deliberately ( through the usual officially unofficial leaks ) expose the program as a fake intercept system .
Keep building the pyramids .
I bet the CIA could keep the conspiracy stories going , especially since there really is a conspiracy going .
Everytime someone says " It 's just a bunch of stupid pyramids that idiot , President khallow threw up in 2013 .
There 's nothing to see .
" , the rebuttal would be " But why did they repaint the Omaha one last week ?
What are they really using those things for ?
And have you seen the size of the parking lot ?
They plow that in winter .
" Anyone depending on nuclear ballistic missiles would have to consider that maybe those pyramids are a real ballistic defense system now even if they were originally fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems.
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans.
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own.
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.I'm not clear why this was modded "funny".
It's a viable strategy.
Even a completely fake intercept system might work.
Imagine if the US spent a few hundred million a year building large concrete pyramids outside every major city (maintenance would be a lot lower since there's not much cost to maintaining a hunk of concrete).
Deliberately (through the usual officially unofficial leaks) expose the program as a fake intercept system.
Keep building the pyramids.
I bet the CIA could keep the conspiracy stories going, especially since there really is a conspiracy going.
Everytime someone says "It's just a bunch of stupid pyramids that idiot, President khallow threw up in 2013.
There's nothing to see.
", the rebuttal would be "But why did they repaint the Omaha one last week?
What are they really using those things for?
And have you seen the size of the parking lot?
They plow that in winter.
" 

Anyone depending on nuclear ballistic missiles would have to consider that maybe those pyramids are a real ballistic defense system now even if they were originally fake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999520</id>
	<title>It already has worked.</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1265141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis\_bmd" title="wikipedia.org">Aegis BMD</a> [wikipedia.org] is already pretty well-proven system (see the "Stellar" series of tests). Not to mention the fact the we've actually used it to shoot down the satellite - which was, you know, shooting a bullet with a bullet. Whether the system is <b>cost-effective</b> is another question, and one far more open to debate. And to be sure, more development is going to be required. But saying "it will never work" at this point just makes you look silly - it already HAS worked. Several times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aegis BMD [ wikipedia.org ] is already pretty well-proven system ( see the " Stellar " series of tests ) .
Not to mention the fact the we 've actually used it to shoot down the satellite - which was , you know , shooting a bullet with a bullet .
Whether the system is cost-effective is another question , and one far more open to debate .
And to be sure , more development is going to be required .
But saying " it will never work " at this point just makes you look silly - it already HAS worked .
Several times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Aegis BMD [wikipedia.org] is already pretty well-proven system (see the "Stellar" series of tests).
Not to mention the fact the we've actually used it to shoot down the satellite - which was, you know, shooting a bullet with a bullet.
Whether the system is cost-effective is another question, and one far more open to debate.
And to be sure, more development is going to be required.
But saying "it will never work" at this point just makes you look silly - it already HAS worked.
Several times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998680</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>dalegammage</author>
	<datestamp>1265137860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was stationed in a military outpost in Dammam, Saudi Arabia during the ground war phase of the first Gulf War, I can assure you that the Patriot Missile Systems were effective.  It was incredibly surreal watching the Scuds tracking across the skies and seeing the Patriot Missiles intercept them.  They did not always connect, but another Patriot would immediately fire when the first one missed.  For the twenty of so Scuds that were launched at us, all but five were eliminated by the first Patriot.  The remaining ones were eliminated by the second launch.  Perfect, no.  Effective, yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was stationed in a military outpost in Dammam , Saudi Arabia during the ground war phase of the first Gulf War , I can assure you that the Patriot Missile Systems were effective .
It was incredibly surreal watching the Scuds tracking across the skies and seeing the Patriot Missiles intercept them .
They did not always connect , but another Patriot would immediately fire when the first one missed .
For the twenty of so Scuds that were launched at us , all but five were eliminated by the first Patriot .
The remaining ones were eliminated by the second launch .
Perfect , no .
Effective , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was stationed in a military outpost in Dammam, Saudi Arabia during the ground war phase of the first Gulf War, I can assure you that the Patriot Missile Systems were effective.
It was incredibly surreal watching the Scuds tracking across the skies and seeing the Patriot Missiles intercept them.
They did not always connect, but another Patriot would immediately fire when the first one missed.
For the twenty of so Scuds that were launched at us, all but five were eliminated by the first Patriot.
The remaining ones were eliminated by the second launch.
Perfect, no.
Effective, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</id>
	<title>They always fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>time to end this silliness. Reagan is dead, his "Starwars" waste of money should join him. We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.</p><p>Eisenhower was right in his "Cross of Iron" speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>time to end this silliness .
Reagan is dead , his " Starwars " waste of money should join him .
We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.Eisenhower was right in his " Cross of Iron " speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>time to end this silliness.
Reagan is dead, his "Starwars" waste of money should join him.
We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.Eisenhower was right in his "Cross of Iron" speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999338</id>
	<title>Re:Why it failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that you may be wrong about IE6 being the cause. I've heard from sources that it was the Forth language interpreter used in critical software that once again failed to live up to its former glory in Arizona.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that you may be wrong about IE6 being the cause .
I 've heard from sources that it was the Forth language interpreter used in critical software that once again failed to live up to its former glory in Arizona .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that you may be wrong about IE6 being the cause.
I've heard from sources that it was the Forth language interpreter used in critical software that once again failed to live up to its former glory in Arizona.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996432</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems. Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans. So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own. Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.</p></div><p>this is just, the right excuse to spend millions and billions on failed systems,,meanwhile this economy struggles,what they need is more space money,,this is wrong,you figure it out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but you should ask yourself,, were you born at night??? or were you born last night..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems .
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians , Chinese , and North Koreans .
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems , they will make even more mistakes than we did , and their rockets will fail all on their own .
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.this is just , the right excuse to spend millions and billions on failed systems,,meanwhile this economy struggles,what they need is more space money,,this is wrong,you figure it out ...but you should ask yourself, , were you born at night ? ? ?
or were you born last night. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems.
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans.
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own.
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.this is just, the right excuse to spend millions and billions on failed systems,,meanwhile this economy struggles,what they need is more space money,,this is wrong,you figure it out ...but you should ask yourself,, were you born at night???
or were you born last night..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994356</id>
	<title>Who still uses X band? Ka band and Laser are used</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who still uses X band? Ka band and Laser are used more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who still uses X band ?
Ka band and Laser are used more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who still uses X band?
Ka band and Laser are used more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999162</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter.  Even if you completely eliminated military spending (a bad idea, but that's just my opinion), we would still have a deficit.  That's how bad our budget situation is right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter .
Even if you completely eliminated military spending ( a bad idea , but that 's just my opinion ) , we would still have a deficit .
That 's how bad our budget situation is right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter.
Even if you completely eliminated military spending (a bad idea, but that's just my opinion), we would still have a deficit.
That's how bad our budget situation is right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997948</id>
	<title>Re:Why it failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just what THEY want you to think. Actually a secret branch of the military used alien technology to hack into the core code of the universe and rewrite the X-band radio protocols, to prevent the Chinese from detecting CIA mind control satellites launches.  The testers didn't didn't get the memo because the Illuminati intercepted it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just what THEY want you to think .
Actually a secret branch of the military used alien technology to hack into the core code of the universe and rewrite the X-band radio protocols , to prevent the Chinese from detecting CIA mind control satellites launches .
The testers did n't did n't get the memo because the Illuminati intercepted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just what THEY want you to think.
Actually a secret branch of the military used alien technology to hack into the core code of the universe and rewrite the X-band radio protocols, to prevent the Chinese from detecting CIA mind control satellites launches.
The testers didn't didn't get the memo because the Illuminati intercepted it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996374</id>
	<title>Re:It will never work.</title>
	<author>RogL</author>
	<datestamp>1265130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, completely impossible - except it's already been done, back in the 1960's.</p><p>from a DoD timeline, and frequently mentioned in a quick Google search:<br>1963 Nike Zeus tests demonstrated the system&rsquo;s ability to intercept an ICBM warhead</p><p>An ABM is not a bullet - it can be radar-guided in to a point in front of the incoming ICBM, and meet up with it - then either directly impact it (kinetic kill) or use the old Nike technique of exploding a 5-megaton warhead in the general vicinity of the ICBM.  Hey with 5-megatons, you don't need to hit it on the nose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , completely impossible - except it 's already been done , back in the 1960 's.from a DoD timeline , and frequently mentioned in a quick Google search : 1963 Nike Zeus tests demonstrated the system    s ability to intercept an ICBM warheadAn ABM is not a bullet - it can be radar-guided in to a point in front of the incoming ICBM , and meet up with it - then either directly impact it ( kinetic kill ) or use the old Nike technique of exploding a 5-megaton warhead in the general vicinity of the ICBM .
Hey with 5-megatons , you do n't need to hit it on the nose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, completely impossible - except it's already been done, back in the 1960's.from a DoD timeline, and frequently mentioned in a quick Google search:1963 Nike Zeus tests demonstrated the system’s ability to intercept an ICBM warheadAn ABM is not a bullet - it can be radar-guided in to a point in front of the incoming ICBM, and meet up with it - then either directly impact it (kinetic kill) or use the old Nike technique of exploding a 5-megaton warhead in the general vicinity of the ICBM.
Hey with 5-megatons, you don't need to hit it on the nose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994020</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fire Zee Mizzilez!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire Zee Mizzilez ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire Zee Mizzilez!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034</id>
	<title>"fails"</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now Commander, that torpedo did NOT self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here."</p><p>Sure it failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now Commander , that torpedo did NOT self-destruct .
You heard it hit the hull , and I was never here .
" Sure it failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now Commander, that torpedo did NOT self-destruct.
You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here.
"Sure it failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998918</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1265138760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Including the supplemental spending brings it to only $900 billion to $1 trillion.  It's still a fraction of what's spent on health care.  But even that's biased, since the military keeps research classified, so all of the research dollars are included in its budget.  Medical research comes from many sources, so the $2.5 trillion doesn't include the supplemental spending.<br> <br>

But why bother comparing them?  They exist for exactly the same reason: to keep US citizens alive and healthy.  Plus, military spending often helps medicine (although the converse isn't as true since we don't use biological or chemical weapons so much anymore).  Anthrax research is done by the military.  Novoseven (probably one of the most expensive drugs) was developed to stop soldiers from bleeding to death.  The military will pay for a doctor's training for a 4 year active, 4 year reserve duty commitment.  And army doctors are probably the best at trauma related injuries... which they use for both our soldiers and local civilians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Including the supplemental spending brings it to only $ 900 billion to $ 1 trillion .
It 's still a fraction of what 's spent on health care .
But even that 's biased , since the military keeps research classified , so all of the research dollars are included in its budget .
Medical research comes from many sources , so the $ 2.5 trillion does n't include the supplemental spending .
But why bother comparing them ?
They exist for exactly the same reason : to keep US citizens alive and healthy .
Plus , military spending often helps medicine ( although the converse is n't as true since we do n't use biological or chemical weapons so much anymore ) .
Anthrax research is done by the military .
Novoseven ( probably one of the most expensive drugs ) was developed to stop soldiers from bleeding to death .
The military will pay for a doctor 's training for a 4 year active , 4 year reserve duty commitment .
And army doctors are probably the best at trauma related injuries... which they use for both our soldiers and local civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Including the supplemental spending brings it to only $900 billion to $1 trillion.
It's still a fraction of what's spent on health care.
But even that's biased, since the military keeps research classified, so all of the research dollars are included in its budget.
Medical research comes from many sources, so the $2.5 trillion doesn't include the supplemental spending.
But why bother comparing them?
They exist for exactly the same reason: to keep US citizens alive and healthy.
Plus, military spending often helps medicine (although the converse isn't as true since we don't use biological or chemical weapons so much anymore).
Anthrax research is done by the military.
Novoseven (probably one of the most expensive drugs) was developed to stop soldiers from bleeding to death.
The military will pay for a doctor's training for a 4 year active, 4 year reserve duty commitment.
And army doctors are probably the best at trauma related injuries... which they use for both our soldiers and local civilians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31003246</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how starting a war with a country that was no real threat to start with counts as defense rather than terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how starting a war with a country that was no real threat to start with counts as defense rather than terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how starting a war with a country that was no real threat to start with counts as defense rather than terrorism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999380</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's just that nobody has shown that they do."</p><p>I beg to differ both land based and sea based BMD solutions have proven hit-to-kill intercepts.</p><p>(SM3)Standard Missile 3 with Aegis SPY-1 BMD:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k\_At2TjSj\_I<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-04B8rYTwk<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVVe68b1oY0</p><p>(PAC3) Patriot ADCAP-3 Terminal Intercept:<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrugIQlzOk</p><p>(THAAD) Theater High Altitude Defense Terminal Intercept:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0slPQmh2Eg</p><p>Ground Bases Intercept Mid Course:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUGRk1HeZU&amp;NR=1<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOWlXC57fo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's just that nobody has shown that they do .
" I beg to differ both land based and sea based BMD solutions have proven hit-to-kill intercepts .
( SM3 ) Standard Missile 3 with Aegis SPY-1 BMD : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = k \ _At2TjSj \ _Ihttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = R-04B8rYTwkhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = CVVe68b1oY0 ( PAC3 ) Patriot ADCAP-3 Terminal Intercept : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = KMrugIQlzOk ( THAAD ) Theater High Altitude Defense Terminal Intercept : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = C0slPQmh2EgGround Bases Intercept Mid Course : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = NrUGRk1HeZU&amp;NR = 1http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = paOWlXC57fo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's just that nobody has shown that they do.
"I beg to differ both land based and sea based BMD solutions have proven hit-to-kill intercepts.
(SM3)Standard Missile 3 with Aegis SPY-1 BMD:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k\_At2TjSj\_Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-04B8rYTwkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVVe68b1oY0(PAC3) Patriot ADCAP-3 Terminal Intercept:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrugIQlzOk(THAAD) Theater High Altitude Defense Terminal Intercept:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0slPQmh2EgGround Bases Intercept Mid Course:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUGRk1HeZU&amp;NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOWlXC57fo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265121600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny you should mention that.  The effectiveness of Patriots in Gulf War I is <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/pl920908.htm" title="fas.org">hotly</a> [fas.org] <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/zimmerman.htm" title="fas.org">contested</a> [fas.org].

</p><p>Both sides rely on subjective arguments about what constitutes a "successful intercept", neither have any hard data on how many (if any) Scuds were actually downed, and the folks that were having the Scuds aimed at them said that they were getting through pretty well, so I'd have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is that Patriot was a propaganda weapon in Gulf War I.

</p><p>I should note that plenty of money has been thrown at defence contractors since then, and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't work.  It's just that nobody has shown that they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you should mention that .
The effectiveness of Patriots in Gulf War I is hotly [ fas.org ] contested [ fas.org ] .
Both sides rely on subjective arguments about what constitutes a " successful intercept " , neither have any hard data on how many ( if any ) Scuds were actually downed , and the folks that were having the Scuds aimed at them said that they were getting through pretty well , so I 'd have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is that Patriot was a propaganda weapon in Gulf War I . I should note that plenty of money has been thrown at defence contractors since then , and there 's certainly no technical reason why AMBs ca n't work .
It 's just that nobody has shown that they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you should mention that.
The effectiveness of Patriots in Gulf War I is hotly [fas.org] contested [fas.org].
Both sides rely on subjective arguments about what constitutes a "successful intercept", neither have any hard data on how many (if any) Scuds were actually downed, and the folks that were having the Scuds aimed at them said that they were getting through pretty well, so I'd have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is that Patriot was a propaganda weapon in Gulf War I.

I should note that plenty of money has been thrown at defence contractors since then, and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't work.
It's just that nobody has shown that they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995418</id>
	<title>Re:Failed test or failed missile?</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1265126880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Both the target missile [...] and the interceptor [...] performed as expected.</p></div><p>Reading those two lines, I think the missiles failed to fail?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed.Both the target missile [ ... ] and the interceptor [ ... ] performed as expected.Reading those two lines , I think the missiles failed to fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a recent test of a US missile defense system has failed.Both the target missile [...] and the interceptor [...] performed as expected.Reading those two lines, I think the missiles failed to fail?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999714</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orbital LSG in Chandler Arizona has designed and deployed many ABM systems.  Hell, they even make the best and most intelligent targets for the military.  Their success rate, as far as I know from inside sources, is 100\%.   I sleep better at night knowing that the six nukes North Korea has pointed at us WILL get shot down in the upper atmosphere if they were launched.  Whoever said real protection was cheap?  It's not, it's very expensive.  However, the alternative of millions dead from a nuke, not to mention the property damage, makes what we spend on defense insignificant here in the USA.  Government wastefulness, kickbacks, corruption and evil is another issue all together.  It's not wise to mix them together.  If you want to get active in that issue, subscribe to http://downsizedc.org email list and get involved.  Just my two cent's worth...   Gruic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbital LSG in Chandler Arizona has designed and deployed many ABM systems .
Hell , they even make the best and most intelligent targets for the military .
Their success rate , as far as I know from inside sources , is 100 \ % .
I sleep better at night knowing that the six nukes North Korea has pointed at us WILL get shot down in the upper atmosphere if they were launched .
Whoever said real protection was cheap ?
It 's not , it 's very expensive .
However , the alternative of millions dead from a nuke , not to mention the property damage , makes what we spend on defense insignificant here in the USA .
Government wastefulness , kickbacks , corruption and evil is another issue all together .
It 's not wise to mix them together .
If you want to get active in that issue , subscribe to http : //downsizedc.org email list and get involved .
Just my two cent 's worth... Gruic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbital LSG in Chandler Arizona has designed and deployed many ABM systems.
Hell, they even make the best and most intelligent targets for the military.
Their success rate, as far as I know from inside sources, is 100\%.
I sleep better at night knowing that the six nukes North Korea has pointed at us WILL get shot down in the upper atmosphere if they were launched.
Whoever said real protection was cheap?
It's not, it's very expensive.
However, the alternative of millions dead from a nuke, not to mention the property damage, makes what we spend on defense insignificant here in the USA.
Government wastefulness, kickbacks, corruption and evil is another issue all together.
It's not wise to mix them together.
If you want to get active in that issue, subscribe to http://downsizedc.org email list and get involved.
Just my two cent's worth...   Gruic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998010</id>
	<title>Re:It will never work.</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265135400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, except the target bullet is larger than a person, easily damaged by nearby explosions and is airborne for an extended period of time rather than less then a second. And the kill bullet is large and can make intelligent in-course flight corrections. So really, you might say it's like hitting a missile with a missile.  I don't really see that as needing a simplified analogy that overstates the difficulty by enormous factors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except the target bullet is larger than a person , easily damaged by nearby explosions and is airborne for an extended period of time rather than less then a second .
And the kill bullet is large and can make intelligent in-course flight corrections .
So really , you might say it 's like hitting a missile with a missile .
I do n't really see that as needing a simplified analogy that overstates the difficulty by enormous factors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except the target bullet is larger than a person, easily damaged by nearby explosions and is airborne for an extended period of time rather than less then a second.
And the kill bullet is large and can make intelligent in-course flight corrections.
So really, you might say it's like hitting a missile with a missile.
I don't really see that as needing a simplified analogy that overstates the difficulty by enormous factors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994640</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a trap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995468</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1265127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't work</p></div><p>Sure there is.  A dumb missile is always going to be a couple orders of magnitude cheaper to build than an interceptor.  All the enemy has to do is keep firing until we run out of interceptors, or fire a volley with enough targets that we can't accurately track them, or saturate the radar installations with attacks until one finally gets through (a &gt;90\% success rate would be pretty incredible, and it only takes one well aimed missile to take out a target).</p><p>A missile defense system can only ever work against a limited number of incoming missiles, launched in a rather haphazard way; it's purposes are A) Limited attacks by rouge nations/generals/terrorists or B) Defense against a counter-attack after a major (nuclear) war has already been won.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and there 's certainly no technical reason why AMBs ca n't workSure there is .
A dumb missile is always going to be a couple orders of magnitude cheaper to build than an interceptor .
All the enemy has to do is keep firing until we run out of interceptors , or fire a volley with enough targets that we ca n't accurately track them , or saturate the radar installations with attacks until one finally gets through ( a &gt; 90 \ % success rate would be pretty incredible , and it only takes one well aimed missile to take out a target ) .A missile defense system can only ever work against a limited number of incoming missiles , launched in a rather haphazard way ; it 's purposes are A ) Limited attacks by rouge nations/generals/terrorists or B ) Defense against a counter-attack after a major ( nuclear ) war has already been won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and there's certainly no technical reason why AMBs can't workSure there is.
A dumb missile is always going to be a couple orders of magnitude cheaper to build than an interceptor.
All the enemy has to do is keep firing until we run out of interceptors, or fire a volley with enough targets that we can't accurately track them, or saturate the radar installations with attacks until one finally gets through (a &gt;90\% success rate would be pretty incredible, and it only takes one well aimed missile to take out a target).A missile defense system can only ever work against a limited number of incoming missiles, launched in a rather haphazard way; it's purposes are A) Limited attacks by rouge nations/generals/terrorists or B) Defense against a counter-attack after a major (nuclear) war has already been won.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994266</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>cfortin</author>
	<datestamp>1265121540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yawn, yea, its all a conspiracy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Or perhaps, this kind of system is fscking *hard*, and getting it working would be a huge thing.  Or is duck-and-cover good enough for you and your kids?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn , yea , its all a conspiracy ...Or perhaps , this kind of system is fscking * hard * , and getting it working would be a huge thing .
Or is duck-and-cover good enough for you and your kids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn, yea, its all a conspiracy ...Or perhaps, this kind of system is fscking *hard*, and getting it working would be a huge thing.
Or is duck-and-cover good enough for you and your kids?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999272</id>
	<title>Not enough tests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When von Braun was developing the V-2, they launched 600 rockets before they hit a military target.  If we were serious about missile defense, there'd be about one test a week, instead of one test a year.  The US built over a thousand Minuteman ICBMs in five years in the 1960s. Yes, it would cost.  But it would work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When von Braun was developing the V-2 , they launched 600 rockets before they hit a military target .
If we were serious about missile defense , there 'd be about one test a week , instead of one test a year .
The US built over a thousand Minuteman ICBMs in five years in the 1960s .
Yes , it would cost .
But it would work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When von Braun was developing the V-2, they launched 600 rockets before they hit a military target.
If we were serious about missile defense, there'd be about one test a week, instead of one test a year.
The US built over a thousand Minuteman ICBMs in five years in the 1960s.
Yes, it would cost.
But it would work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995800</id>
	<title>was the pacific based launched from Kwajalein?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have a few friends i can rib.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have a few friends i can rib .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have a few friends i can rib.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456</id>
	<title>you can't defeat iranian missiles with this</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265122680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mainly because iran employs a diabolical tactic that no american interceptor can defeat: if a missile of their's is shot down, they merely photoshop some more:</p><p><a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html" title="boingboing.net">http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html</a> [boingboing.net]</p><p>however, i would encourage american military planners to adopt iran's own dark tactics against it, and photoshop lots of missile interceptors. that should do the trick</p><p>and if the combined powers of fark photoshop and 4chan were militarized, we could bury iranian internet warriors in sheer volume of photoshopped missiles. throw in some lolcats, general ackbar, gold paint sniffer dude, and that guy riding a missile from "dr. strangelove", and iranian missiles will be decisively defeated</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mainly because iran employs a diabolical tactic that no american interceptor can defeat : if a missile of their 's is shot down , they merely photoshop some more : http : //www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html [ boingboing.net ] however , i would encourage american military planners to adopt iran 's own dark tactics against it , and photoshop lots of missile interceptors .
that should do the trickand if the combined powers of fark photoshop and 4chan were militarized , we could bury iranian internet warriors in sheer volume of photoshopped missiles .
throw in some lolcats , general ackbar , gold paint sniffer dude , and that guy riding a missile from " dr. strangelove " , and iranian missiles will be decisively defeated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mainly because iran employs a diabolical tactic that no american interceptor can defeat: if a missile of their's is shot down, they merely photoshop some more:http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html [boingboing.net]however, i would encourage american military planners to adopt iran's own dark tactics against it, and photoshop lots of missile interceptors.
that should do the trickand if the combined powers of fark photoshop and 4chan were militarized, we could bury iranian internet warriors in sheer volume of photoshopped missiles.
throw in some lolcats, general ackbar, gold paint sniffer dude, and that guy riding a missile from "dr. strangelove", and iranian missiles will be decisively defeated</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995722</id>
	<title>This system never has worked</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember following our "missile defense" tests in the news about 6-7 years ago.  The tests kept failing until the military stuck a GPS unit or some such in the target and scored a hit.  They then proudly proclaimed success.  I though, "how stupid do they think we are?"  Then, I watched the misinformation campaign unfold where that little detail of the doctored test was omitted and only the "Missile test hits target" continued to propagate through the media.  We crossed the line into complete Corporatism a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember following our " missile defense " tests in the news about 6-7 years ago .
The tests kept failing until the military stuck a GPS unit or some such in the target and scored a hit .
They then proudly proclaimed success .
I though , " how stupid do they think we are ?
" Then , I watched the misinformation campaign unfold where that little detail of the doctored test was omitted and only the " Missile test hits target " continued to propagate through the media .
We crossed the line into complete Corporatism a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember following our "missile defense" tests in the news about 6-7 years ago.
The tests kept failing until the military stuck a GPS unit or some such in the target and scored a hit.
They then proudly proclaimed success.
I though, "how stupid do they think we are?
"  Then, I watched the misinformation campaign unfold where that little detail of the doctored test was omitted and only the "Missile test hits target" continued to propagate through the media.
We crossed the line into complete Corporatism a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998006</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1265135400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know which one he might be refer to, but this was a pretty cool failure: <a href="http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/10/spiral-light-over-oslo-norway-mystery-solved/" title="current.com">http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/10/spiral-light-over-oslo-norway-mystery-solved/</a> [current.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which one he might be refer to , but this was a pretty cool failure : http : //blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/10/spiral-light-over-oslo-norway-mystery-solved/ [ current.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which one he might be refer to, but this was a pretty cool failure: http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/10/spiral-light-over-oslo-norway-mystery-solved/ [current.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know of a probable failure of a North Korean launch, but what do you mean about Russia. The last time I checked, they were #1 when it comes to build missiles. Theirs have long range, counter-measures and even include anti-laser protection. What is the failure you are refering to ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of a probable failure of a North Korean launch , but what do you mean about Russia .
The last time I checked , they were # 1 when it comes to build missiles .
Theirs have long range , counter-measures and even include anti-laser protection .
What is the failure you are refering to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of a probable failure of a North Korean launch, but what do you mean about Russia.
The last time I checked, they were #1 when it comes to build missiles.
Theirs have long range, counter-measures and even include anti-laser protection.
What is the failure you are refering to ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386</id>
	<title>You fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we should spend a little more money on literacy and math, since you fail at both.<br> <br>

US medical spending is over $2.5 trillion <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016" title="medpagetoday.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016</a> [medpagetoday.com] <br>
US defense spending is $685 billion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>
Free your mind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... your ass will follow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should spend a little more money on literacy and math , since you fail at both .
US medical spending is over $ 2.5 trillion http : //www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016 [ medpagetoday.com ] US defense spending is $ 685 billion http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military \ _budget \ _of \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ] Free your mind ... your ass will follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should spend a little more money on literacy and math, since you fail at both.
US medical spending is over $2.5 trillion http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016 [medpagetoday.com] 
US defense spending is $685 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org]  
Free your mind ... your ass will follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997142</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>Joey Vegetables</author>
	<datestamp>1265132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kind of arms race always favors, all other things being equal, the wealthier player.  It also favors, all other things being equal, the aggressor; missiles are cheap and abundant while missile defense systems are neither.  The U.S. may be able to win this race in the short term.  But longer-term it has no chance whatsoever.  Developing and building the technology that will ultimately kill most of us isn't a great strategic move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of arms race always favors , all other things being equal , the wealthier player .
It also favors , all other things being equal , the aggressor ; missiles are cheap and abundant while missile defense systems are neither .
The U.S. may be able to win this race in the short term .
But longer-term it has no chance whatsoever .
Developing and building the technology that will ultimately kill most of us is n't a great strategic move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of arms race always favors, all other things being equal, the wealthier player.
It also favors, all other things being equal, the aggressor; missiles are cheap and abundant while missile defense systems are neither.
The U.S. may be able to win this race in the short term.
But longer-term it has no chance whatsoever.
Developing and building the technology that will ultimately kill most of us isn't a great strategic move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994586</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1265123280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And since they allegedly failed, they will of course need some extra cash for "improvements".</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since they allegedly failed , they will of course need some extra cash for " improvements " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since they allegedly failed, they will of course need some extra cash for "improvements".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998468</id>
	<title>Probably sabotaged.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NMD was probably sabotaged by leftists in league with the Obama administration.  They want the USA to be a giant and defenseless nuclear target so all the third world people can take their revenge upon the evil Americans.  There would be nothing that would make the leftists happier than a bunch of white cities in ruins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NMD was probably sabotaged by leftists in league with the Obama administration .
They want the USA to be a giant and defenseless nuclear target so all the third world people can take their revenge upon the evil Americans .
There would be nothing that would make the leftists happier than a bunch of white cities in ruins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NMD was probably sabotaged by leftists in league with the Obama administration.
They want the USA to be a giant and defenseless nuclear target so all the third world people can take their revenge upon the evil Americans.
There would be nothing that would make the leftists happier than a bunch of white cities in ruins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998564</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s, but the tech wasn't <b>goon</b> enough then.</p></div></blockquote><p>The tech doesn't bear a close enough resemblance to a member of the Something Awful forums?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s , but the tech was n't goon enough then.The tech does n't bear a close enough resemblance to a member of the Something Awful forums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of missile defense goes back to the 50s, but the tech wasn't goon enough then.The tech doesn't bear a close enough resemblance to a member of the Something Awful forums?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995628</id>
	<title>Re:you can't defeat iranian missiles with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Photoshoping all that can get expensive. I recommend using gimp instead to save taxpayer money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshoping all that can get expensive .
I recommend using gimp instead to save taxpayer money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Photoshoping all that can get expensive.
I recommend using gimp instead to save taxpayer money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995050</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265125500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>their real purpose, which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors.</p></div></blockquote><p>That may be true, but this is the best kind of corruption the military-industrial-congressional complex can have: defense R&amp;D. I would much prefer seeing my money spent on scientists and engineers in the states than on offensive, unnecessary overseas wars.</p><p>We don't need a large standing army.  Having a small group with the best technology at their disposal is the better way to go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their real purpose , which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors.That may be true , but this is the best kind of corruption the military-industrial-congressional complex can have : defense R&amp;D .
I would much prefer seeing my money spent on scientists and engineers in the states than on offensive , unnecessary overseas wars.We do n't need a large standing army .
Having a small group with the best technology at their disposal is the better way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their real purpose, which is funneling large sums of taxpayer cash to defense contractors.That may be true, but this is the best kind of corruption the military-industrial-congressional complex can have: defense R&amp;D.
I would much prefer seeing my money spent on scientists and engineers in the states than on offensive, unnecessary overseas wars.We don't need a large standing army.
Having a small group with the best technology at their disposal is the better way to go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994278</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise, really</title>
	<author>linuxgurugamer</author>
	<datestamp>1265121600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you're wrong.</p><p>In the first place, the Patriot missiles were only partially successful.  Since they weren't intended for the purpose of defending large areas, that is acceptable, and they've been improved since them.  But the Patriot missiles are a short range defense.</p><p>There have been previous successful tests.  A simple google search turned up the following:</p><p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWBT00766220070928" title="reuters.com" rel="nofollow">Reuters</a> [reuters.com]<br><a href="http://www.mda.mil/news/09news0021.html" title="mda.mil" rel="nofollow"> Military Defense Agency </a> [mda.mil]<br><a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/ballisticmissiledefense/wm2161.cfm" title="heritage.org" rel="nofollow">Heritage Foundation</a> [heritage.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 're wrong.In the first place , the Patriot missiles were only partially successful .
Since they were n't intended for the purpose of defending large areas , that is acceptable , and they 've been improved since them .
But the Patriot missiles are a short range defense.There have been previous successful tests .
A simple google search turned up the following : Reuters [ reuters.com ] Military Defense Agency [ mda.mil ] Heritage Foundation [ heritage.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you're wrong.In the first place, the Patriot missiles were only partially successful.
Since they weren't intended for the purpose of defending large areas, that is acceptable, and they've been improved since them.
But the Patriot missiles are a short range defense.There have been previous successful tests.
A simple google search turned up the following:Reuters [reuters.com] Military Defense Agency  [mda.mil]Heritage Foundation [heritage.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996370</id>
	<title>Re:Failed test or failed missile?</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1265130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a radar component which gives course corrections to the interceptor. The missile was there, "missiling". The interceptor was, well, intercepting. But without a radar to give course corrections during the interception flight, it can't hit the missile. As such, both can "perform as expected", and still fail to result in an interception.</p><p>That, of course, doesn't mean everything worked as planned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a radar component which gives course corrections to the interceptor .
The missile was there , " missiling " .
The interceptor was , well , intercepting .
But without a radar to give course corrections during the interception flight , it ca n't hit the missile .
As such , both can " perform as expected " , and still fail to result in an interception.That , of course , does n't mean everything worked as planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a radar component which gives course corrections to the interceptor.
The missile was there, "missiling".
The interceptor was, well, intercepting.
But without a radar to give course corrections during the interception flight, it can't hit the missile.
As such, both can "perform as expected", and still fail to result in an interception.That, of course, doesn't mean everything worked as planned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006966</id>
	<title>Re:"fails"</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1264970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Now Commander, that torpedo did NOT self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here."</p><p>Sure it failed.</p></div><p>Well just another friendly fire incident. But what is friendly about it? Squeeze my testicals hard... how is that friendly is that?

Regards,
NSN</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now Commander , that torpedo did NOT self-destruct .
You heard it hit the hull , and I was never here .
" Sure it failed.Well just another friendly fire incident .
But what is friendly about it ?
Squeeze my testicals hard... how is that friendly is that ?
Regards , NSN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now Commander, that torpedo did NOT self-destruct.
You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here.
"Sure it failed.Well just another friendly fire incident.
But what is friendly about it?
Squeeze my testicals hard... how is that friendly is that?
Regards,
NSN
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995248</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would it be a good thing to increase our spending on entitlement programs when they already consume nearly 54\% of the annual budget.  Even if you canceled all of the defense spending, you would only be able to sponsor another program the size of Medicare, which has been a failure for the most part and still would not be able to provide free care to everyone.  Defense spending is only 16.85\% of the federal budget for FY2009, Medicare+Medicaid is nearly 21\% and growing.  This should be a stark reminder why we don't actually want more systems like this.  The military budgets are inflated fighting wars, the Medicare and Medicaid budgets are perpetually growing without reason.</p><p>I'm in favor of cutting programs that can't prove their success, but that cut is made with a knife that is double sided.  If we are going to be cutting defense programs that don't work, the entitlement and welfare programs that don't work need to be cut as well.  With the utter and complete failure most of our social systems have been on improving domestic living conditions and their lack of positive social impact, it's about time we go item by item and make each one prove their existence.  Note, proving a need for their existence would require more than a morality excuse, but a true analysis of their cost and effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would it be a good thing to increase our spending on entitlement programs when they already consume nearly 54 \ % of the annual budget .
Even if you canceled all of the defense spending , you would only be able to sponsor another program the size of Medicare , which has been a failure for the most part and still would not be able to provide free care to everyone .
Defense spending is only 16.85 \ % of the federal budget for FY2009 , Medicare + Medicaid is nearly 21 \ % and growing .
This should be a stark reminder why we do n't actually want more systems like this .
The military budgets are inflated fighting wars , the Medicare and Medicaid budgets are perpetually growing without reason.I 'm in favor of cutting programs that ca n't prove their success , but that cut is made with a knife that is double sided .
If we are going to be cutting defense programs that do n't work , the entitlement and welfare programs that do n't work need to be cut as well .
With the utter and complete failure most of our social systems have been on improving domestic living conditions and their lack of positive social impact , it 's about time we go item by item and make each one prove their existence .
Note , proving a need for their existence would require more than a morality excuse , but a true analysis of their cost and effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would it be a good thing to increase our spending on entitlement programs when they already consume nearly 54\% of the annual budget.
Even if you canceled all of the defense spending, you would only be able to sponsor another program the size of Medicare, which has been a failure for the most part and still would not be able to provide free care to everyone.
Defense spending is only 16.85\% of the federal budget for FY2009, Medicare+Medicaid is nearly 21\% and growing.
This should be a stark reminder why we don't actually want more systems like this.
The military budgets are inflated fighting wars, the Medicare and Medicaid budgets are perpetually growing without reason.I'm in favor of cutting programs that can't prove their success, but that cut is made with a knife that is double sided.
If we are going to be cutting defense programs that don't work, the entitlement and welfare programs that don't work need to be cut as well.
With the utter and complete failure most of our social systems have been on improving domestic living conditions and their lack of positive social impact, it's about time we go item by item and make each one prove their existence.
Note, proving a need for their existence would require more than a morality excuse, but a true analysis of their cost and effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995302</id>
	<title>Re:Who still uses X band? Ka band and Laser are us</title>
	<author>s122604</author>
	<datestamp>1265126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ka Band, Laser?

Resolution/Discrimination is phenomenal at K band, but range can be a problem.

As wavelength goes down, you start getting real issues with propagation through the atmosphere. The attenuation from water vapor can be severe...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ka Band , Laser ?
Resolution/Discrimination is phenomenal at K band , but range can be a problem .
As wavelength goes down , you start getting real issues with propagation through the atmosphere .
The attenuation from water vapor can be severe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ka Band, Laser?
Resolution/Discrimination is phenomenal at K band, but range can be a problem.
As wavelength goes down, you start getting real issues with propagation through the atmosphere.
The attenuation from water vapor can be severe...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey Jackass, did you include all the supplemental spending?
<br> <br>
$685 billion is the base.  Then through the course of year the defense gets more money from congress.
<br> <br>
We are spending $10 Billion/month in Iraq.  We have already spent over several Trillions dollars are the Iraq fiasco alone!!
<br> <br>
Get a clue moron, defense spending is the largest part of the US expenditures.  The deference is it's not an entitlement program, it just acts like one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Jackass , did you include all the supplemental spending ?
$ 685 billion is the base .
Then through the course of year the defense gets more money from congress .
We are spending $ 10 Billion/month in Iraq .
We have already spent over several Trillions dollars are the Iraq fiasco alone ! !
Get a clue moron , defense spending is the largest part of the US expenditures .
The deference is it 's not an entitlement program , it just acts like one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Jackass, did you include all the supplemental spending?
$685 billion is the base.
Then through the course of year the defense gets more money from congress.
We are spending $10 Billion/month in Iraq.
We have already spent over several Trillions dollars are the Iraq fiasco alone!!
Get a clue moron, defense spending is the largest part of the US expenditures.
The deference is it's not an entitlement program, it just acts like one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994638</id>
	<title>Re:They always fail.</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1265123640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reagan is dead, his "Starwars" waste of money should join him. We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.</p></div><p>I hate to break it to you but nothing is "free"......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reagan is dead , his " Starwars " waste of money should join him .
We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.I hate to break it to you but nothing is " free " ..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reagan is dead, his "Starwars" waste of money should join him.
We could easily have free medical care for everyone if we cut the defense department to a reasonable size.I hate to break it to you but nothing is "free"......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328</id>
	<title>Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>yellekc</author>
	<datestamp>1265121900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems. Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans. So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own. Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems .
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians , Chinese , and North Koreans .
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems , they will make even more mistakes than we did , and their rockets will fail all on their own .
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system will still force our adversaries to build more complex rockets and delivery systems.
Rocket science is tough even for the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans.
So maybe in their attempt to upgrade their rockets to bypass our barely working defense systems, they will make even more mistakes than we did, and their rockets will fail all on their own.
Based on resent missile test from Russia and North Korea it might just work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994062</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if the US stopped wasting money on boondoggles like this, they wouldn't have had to cancel plans to return to the Moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the US stopped wasting money on boondoggles like this , they would n't have had to cancel plans to return to the Moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the US stopped wasting money on boondoggles like this, they wouldn't have had to cancel plans to return to the Moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997056</id>
	<title>Re:Forced Upgrades</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1265132340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might be "Bulava" failed tests although that's only one component of their military strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be " Bulava " failed tests although that 's only one component of their military strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be "Bulava" failed tests although that's only one component of their military strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994962</id>
	<title>Re:You fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's spending by the entire nation, not the budget allocation of the federal government. If you look at the recent NYTimes graphic, spending on defense in this budget almost exactly equals SS spending, and is greater than government health care spending. But think of what we get for it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's spending by the entire nation , not the budget allocation of the federal government .
If you look at the recent NYTimes graphic , spending on defense in this budget almost exactly equals SS spending , and is greater than government health care spending .
But think of what we get for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's spending by the entire nation, not the budget allocation of the federal government.
If you look at the recent NYTimes graphic, spending on defense in this budget almost exactly equals SS spending, and is greater than government health care spending.
But think of what we get for it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252</id>
	<title>Why it failed</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1265121420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few people know the real story behind this, which is quickly being covered up.  The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update.  As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch, the message "Please wait while Windows installs your updates. You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few people know the real story behind this , which is quickly being covered up .
The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update .
As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch , the message " Please wait while Windows installs your updates .
You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few people know the real story behind this, which is quickly being covered up.
The sea-based X-band radar failed because it stopped mid-test to install a Windows update.
As all available bandwidth was consumed by the critical IE6 patch, the message "Please wait while Windows installs your updates.
You will be able to resume your hostilities at the conclusion of this operation.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31003246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31007714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_028250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31007714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30997056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31003246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30999520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30996374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30994034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30998096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.31006966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_028250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_028250.30995722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
