<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_131224</id>
	<title>Google and NSA Teaming Up</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265293680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>i\_frame writes <i>"The Washington Post reports that 'Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057.html?nav=rss\_email/components">analyze a major corporate espionage attack</a> that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google &mdash; and its users &mdash; from future attack.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>i \ _frame writes " The Washington Post reports that 'Under an agreement that is still being finalized , the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks , according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter .
The objective is to better defend Google    and its users    from future attack .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i\_frame writes "The Washington Post reports that 'Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter.
The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026740</id>
	<title>Want a simple fact about privacy?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265276880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Want a simple fact about privacy?  Privacy's Dead!" - Shepard Smith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Want a simple fact about privacy ?
Privacy 's Dead !
" - Shepard Smith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Want a simple fact about privacy?
Privacy's Dead!
" - Shepard Smith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022034</id>
	<title>Could be worse...</title>
	<author>Kc\_spot</author>
	<datestamp>1265297640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google and the FCC could get in cahoooooooooooo crap hope I didn't give someone a bad idea...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and the FCC could get in cahoooooooooooo crap hope I did n't give someone a bad idea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and the FCC could get in cahoooooooooooo crap hope I didn't give someone a bad idea...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022566</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just not the one at google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just not the one at google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just not the one at google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024954</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward Trolls</title>
	<author>notrandom</author>
	<datestamp>1265311440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually...<br>- google MAY not be evil but is certainly making it easy for evil to get up in your ass<br>
- the us govt. IS most certainly evil<br>
- the chinese people ARE victims indeed</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually...- google MAY not be evil but is certainly making it easy for evil to get up in your ass - the us govt .
IS most certainly evil - the chinese people ARE victims indeed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually...- google MAY not be evil but is certainly making it easy for evil to get up in your ass
- the us govt.
IS most certainly evil
- the chinese people ARE victims indeed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022060</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; They running Windows on their desktops, the NSA already had access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    They running Windows on their desktops , the NSA already had access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    They running Windows on their desktops, the NSA already had access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025830</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1265316360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google..</p></div><p>I don't have enough evidence to counter your assertion due to the shroud of top secret surrounding NSA. But I'd still like to point out two non-classified facts:<br> <br>

1. NSA is the biggest employer of Mathematic PHDs in North America.<br> <br>

2. In 1991, the "discovery" of differential cryptanalysis was publicly announced. But then people soon realized that the concept was already guarded against in IBM's DES cipher published back in 1976.<br> <br>
In 1994, IBM publicly admits that it knew about differential cryptanalysis in as early as 1974, and that NSA was already well aware of the attack back then.<br> <br>

In other words, NSA was at least 17 years ahead of academia (and thus the general public) in terms of cryptographic techniques. In hindsight this was no great surpise due to fact #1 above - for every researcher in academia, there's two more in NSA. The NSA knows everything the academia knows, but <b>no one</b> else has access to NSA's discoveries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google..I do n't have enough evidence to counter your assertion due to the shroud of top secret surrounding NSA .
But I 'd still like to point out two non-classified facts : 1 .
NSA is the biggest employer of Mathematic PHDs in North America .
2. In 1991 , the " discovery " of differential cryptanalysis was publicly announced .
But then people soon realized that the concept was already guarded against in IBM 's DES cipher published back in 1976 .
In 1994 , IBM publicly admits that it knew about differential cryptanalysis in as early as 1974 , and that NSA was already well aware of the attack back then .
In other words , NSA was at least 17 years ahead of academia ( and thus the general public ) in terms of cryptographic techniques .
In hindsight this was no great surpise due to fact # 1 above - for every researcher in academia , there 's two more in NSA .
The NSA knows everything the academia knows , but no one else has access to NSA 's discoveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google..I don't have enough evidence to counter your assertion due to the shroud of top secret surrounding NSA.
But I'd still like to point out two non-classified facts: 

1.
NSA is the biggest employer of Mathematic PHDs in North America.
2. In 1991, the "discovery" of differential cryptanalysis was publicly announced.
But then people soon realized that the concept was already guarded against in IBM's DES cipher published back in 1976.
In 1994, IBM publicly admits that it knew about differential cryptanalysis in as early as 1974, and that NSA was already well aware of the attack back then.
In other words, NSA was at least 17 years ahead of academia (and thus the general public) in terms of cryptographic techniques.
In hindsight this was no great surpise due to fact #1 above - for every researcher in academia, there's two more in NSA.
The NSA knows everything the academia knows, but no one else has access to NSA's discoveries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022604</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>wwfarch</author>
	<datestamp>1265300400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt the NSA has beet computer experts than Google but I would guess that while the security experts at each institution are top notch the NSA has a lot more of them than Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt the NSA has beet computer experts than Google but I would guess that while the security experts at each institution are top notch the NSA has a lot more of them than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt the NSA has beet computer experts than Google but I would guess that while the security experts at each institution are top notch the NSA has a lot more of them than Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022532</id>
	<title>Block em for starters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK so part of me says well why don't all of us start off by blocking all IP addresses assigned to China<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh wait isn't that what China wants to do anyway? Block their people from getting to the Internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... kinda sorta.</p><p>It might not be a bad idea for networks with no intention of communicating with China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK so part of me says well why do n't all of us start off by blocking all IP addresses assigned to China ... oh wait is n't that what China wants to do anyway ?
Block their people from getting to the Internet ... kinda sorta.It might not be a bad idea for networks with no intention of communicating with China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK so part of me says well why don't all of us start off by blocking all IP addresses assigned to China ... oh wait isn't that what China wants to do anyway?
Block their people from getting to the Internet ... kinda sorta.It might not be a bad idea for networks with no intention of communicating with China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023934</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA hate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265306880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They let people in the NSA look at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Who knew?<br><br>Aside from that quip- 'the good guys' would probably want to do things in the open like the Linux community does. Sharing data and methodology and so on. I do not see a lot of that coming from the NSA. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They let people in the NSA look at / .
Who knew ? Aside from that quip- 'the good guys ' would probably want to do things in the open like the Linux community does .
Sharing data and methodology and so on .
I do not see a lot of that coming from the NSA .
I 'd be happy to be proven wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They let people in the NSA look at /.
Who knew?Aside from that quip- 'the good guys' would probably want to do things in the open like the Linux community does.
Sharing data and methodology and so on.
I do not see a lot of that coming from the NSA.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022268</id>
	<title>some people move</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265298720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the Backoffice<p>
to the FrontOffice</p><p>
We define whats evil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the Backoffice to the FrontOffice We define whats evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the Backoffice
to the FrontOffice
We define whats evil!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024632</id>
	<title>Two towers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265309940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Two Towers" would be a fitting tag, no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Two Towers " would be a fitting tag , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Two Towers" would be a fitting tag, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024678</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked.  Shocked, I Tell You.</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1265310120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA, I've got a wall in China I want to sell you.</p></div><p>I know you're joking but it's true, so really: The US has decided to <b>publicly announce</b> collaboration between Google and the NSA. It's Diplomacy by other means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA , I 've got a wall in China I want to sell you.I know you 're joking but it 's true , so really : The US has decided to publicly announce collaboration between Google and the NSA .
It 's Diplomacy by other means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA, I've got a wall in China I want to sell you.I know you're joking but it's true, so really: The US has decided to publicly announce collaboration between Google and the NSA.
It's Diplomacy by other means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023578</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1265304960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought that Google was a front company for Microsoft, which in turn is a front company for the NSA. One to collect data on the desktop, and the other to sift through the cloud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that Google was a front company for Microsoft , which in turn is a front company for the NSA .
One to collect data on the desktop , and the other to sift through the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that Google was a front company for Microsoft, which in turn is a front company for the NSA.
One to collect data on the desktop, and the other to sift through the cloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024164</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA hate?</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1265307900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).</p></div><p> <b>Dick Gordon:</b> National Security Agency.<br><b>Martin Bishop:</b> Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.<br><b>Dick Gordon:</b> No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.<br><b>Martin Bishop:</b> Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.<br><b>Dick Gordon:</b> No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.<br><b>Martin Bishop:</b> Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is... Dick.</p><p>(shamelessly copied/pasted from IMDB...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the good guys ( unlike the FBI , who are media-whoring , civil-rights-abusing porno-police ) .
Dick Gordon : National Security Agency.Martin Bishop : Ah .
You 're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.Dick Gordon : No , that 's the FBI .
We 're not chartered for domestic surveillance.Martin Bishop : Oh , I see .
You just overthrow governments .
Set up friendly dictators.Dick Gordon : No , that 's the CIA .
We protect our government 's communications , we try to break the other fella 's codes .
We 're the good guys , Marty.Martin Bishop : Gee , I ca n't tell you what a relief that is.. .
Dick. ( shamelessly copied/pasted from IMDB... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).
Dick Gordon: National Security Agency.Martin Bishop: Ah.
You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.Dick Gordon: No, that's the FBI.
We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.Martin Bishop: Oh, I see.
You just overthrow governments.
Set up friendly dictators.Dick Gordon: No, that's the CIA.
We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes.
We're the good guys, Marty.Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is...
Dick.(shamelessly copied/pasted from IMDB...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022032</id>
	<title>Quid Pro Quo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quid Pro Quo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I wonder what the NSA could possibly want from a search engine the size of Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quid Pro Quo ... I wonder what the NSA could possibly want from a search engine the size of Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quid Pro Quo ... I wonder what the NSA could possibly want from a search engine the size of Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022346</id>
	<title>Stop using ..</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft?<br>
Does google need that in a powerpoint slide via someone from Rick's rolodex?<br>
Or does he only know CIA people</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft ?
Does google need that in a powerpoint slide via someone from Rick 's rolodex ?
Or does he only know CIA people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft?
Does google need that in a powerpoint slide via someone from Rick's rolodex?
Or does he only know CIA people</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward Trolls</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1265300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how this topic breeds anonymous coward trolls, and isn't it strangely coincidental that they're all of the same meme. Google is evil. US Government is a bad guy. China is a victim.</p><p>I'm sure it's only a coincidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how this topic breeds anonymous coward trolls , and is n't it strangely coincidental that they 're all of the same meme .
Google is evil .
US Government is a bad guy .
China is a victim.I 'm sure it 's only a coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how this topic breeds anonymous coward trolls, and isn't it strangely coincidental that they're all of the same meme.
Google is evil.
US Government is a bad guy.
China is a victim.I'm sure it's only a coincidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025606</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265314800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this mistake 0r can be like</htmltext>
<tokenext>this mistake 0r can be like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this mistake 0r can be like</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022626</id>
	<title>No evil</title>
	<author>McGiraf</author>
	<datestamp>1265300580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do no evil, with a little help from Satan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do no evil , with a little help from Satan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do no evil, with a little help from Satan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022554</id>
	<title>Different Experts , but also deniability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, but if Google's investigation points to Chinese government IPs, they must tread on careful ground because they have employees in China that could go to gulag if Google gets too curious.</p><p>Involving the NSA allows them a certain level of deniability/immunity, and let's face it, the NSA probably has been tracking Chinese Gov't IP's a lot longer than anyone, so I think it's not a question of 'better' experts, it more a question of experts experienced in doing what Google wants.</p><p>I still believe that Google is still holding cards to their chest.  I mean, how many other corporate hacks have occurred where the corporation has publicly requested the assistance of the NSA??  I'm not aware of any (though I'm sure someone will post a link showing how little I know!).  So I think Google already has very good evidence that the Chinese Gov't was behind it, but is afraid to make that information public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , but if Google 's investigation points to Chinese government IPs , they must tread on careful ground because they have employees in China that could go to gulag if Google gets too curious.Involving the NSA allows them a certain level of deniability/immunity , and let 's face it , the NSA probably has been tracking Chinese Gov't IP 's a lot longer than anyone , so I think it 's not a question of 'better ' experts , it more a question of experts experienced in doing what Google wants.I still believe that Google is still holding cards to their chest .
I mean , how many other corporate hacks have occurred where the corporation has publicly requested the assistance of the NSA ? ?
I 'm not aware of any ( though I 'm sure someone will post a link showing how little I know ! ) .
So I think Google already has very good evidence that the Chinese Gov't was behind it , but is afraid to make that information public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, but if Google's investigation points to Chinese government IPs, they must tread on careful ground because they have employees in China that could go to gulag if Google gets too curious.Involving the NSA allows them a certain level of deniability/immunity, and let's face it, the NSA probably has been tracking Chinese Gov't IP's a lot longer than anyone, so I think it's not a question of 'better' experts, it more a question of experts experienced in doing what Google wants.I still believe that Google is still holding cards to their chest.
I mean, how many other corporate hacks have occurred where the corporation has publicly requested the assistance of the NSA??
I'm not aware of any (though I'm sure someone will post a link showing how little I know!).
So I think Google already has very good evidence that the Chinese Gov't was behind it, but is afraid to make that information public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024382</id>
	<title>Conspiracy theory #2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265308800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft saw that GMail was more secure than their systems, so they hired some Chinese guys to hack it, knowing that it would be in the news, though access to hotmale accounts never make the news (as it happens too often). Then as NSA used this as a excuse to get access to Google's data on "possible terrorists" all over the world, while they make sure not to let anyone know that they're selling all their data to NSA and others.</p><p>EVIL!!!!!</p><p>We shall all use Linux, and Linux only (or alternatively Plan 9).</p><p><a href="http://qmail.org/" title="qmail.org" rel="nofollow">qmail</a> [qmail.org], for those who don't want their data on cloudy 3rd party datacenters.<br>Ads by Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft saw that GMail was more secure than their systems , so they hired some Chinese guys to hack it , knowing that it would be in the news , though access to hotmale accounts never make the news ( as it happens too often ) .
Then as NSA used this as a excuse to get access to Google 's data on " possible terrorists " all over the world , while they make sure not to let anyone know that they 're selling all their data to NSA and others.EVIL ! ! ! !
! We shall all use Linux , and Linux only ( or alternatively Plan 9 ) .qmail [ qmail.org ] , for those who do n't want their data on cloudy 3rd party datacenters.Ads by Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft saw that GMail was more secure than their systems, so they hired some Chinese guys to hack it, knowing that it would be in the news, though access to hotmale accounts never make the news (as it happens too often).
Then as NSA used this as a excuse to get access to Google's data on "possible terrorists" all over the world, while they make sure not to let anyone know that they're selling all their data to NSA and others.EVIL!!!!
!We shall all use Linux, and Linux only (or alternatively Plan 9).qmail [qmail.org], for those who don't want their data on cloudy 3rd party datacenters.Ads by Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022190</id>
	<title>Wasn't ObaMao supposed to put a stop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to things like this?  I guess the idealism of campaign promises came crashing into the brick wall of reality...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to things like this ?
I guess the idealism of campaign promises came crashing into the brick wall of reality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to things like this?
I guess the idealism of campaign promises came crashing into the brick wall of reality...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022368</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1265299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data. "  RTFA, some people do take privacy seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users ' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data .
" RTFA , some people do take privacy seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data.
"  RTFA, some people do take privacy seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023144</id>
	<title>strategic advantage</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1265303040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The information gleaned from Google will probably give the US a little bit of an advantage in the coming cold war against China.  Additionally, this kind of cooperation without divulging proprietary code or sacrificing anyone's privacy would serve as a much needed template for other US companies to share vital attack info with the US government.  Right now every Chinese company probably gives the Chinese government full and unfettered access to their systems, a considerable advantage for the Chinese.  Democracy/capitalism is probably to the US's considerable disadvantage when it comes to cyber warfare/security.</p><p>Of course, we know the US telcos have sold their soul to the NSA but maybe the information gleaned by having all US telco communications on tap is of limited use.  That kind of info isn't much help when Google (or any other company with offices in China) is attacked from within China, attacks enabled by inside Chinese employees doing their patriotic duty.</p><p>This kind of issue is probably being very closely watched by any company with offices there - it probably goes without saying that if you keep your closely guarded proprietary code there, you might as well be giving it to the Chinese.  I doubt they respect NDA's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The information gleaned from Google will probably give the US a little bit of an advantage in the coming cold war against China .
Additionally , this kind of cooperation without divulging proprietary code or sacrificing anyone 's privacy would serve as a much needed template for other US companies to share vital attack info with the US government .
Right now every Chinese company probably gives the Chinese government full and unfettered access to their systems , a considerable advantage for the Chinese .
Democracy/capitalism is probably to the US 's considerable disadvantage when it comes to cyber warfare/security.Of course , we know the US telcos have sold their soul to the NSA but maybe the information gleaned by having all US telco communications on tap is of limited use .
That kind of info is n't much help when Google ( or any other company with offices in China ) is attacked from within China , attacks enabled by inside Chinese employees doing their patriotic duty.This kind of issue is probably being very closely watched by any company with offices there - it probably goes without saying that if you keep your closely guarded proprietary code there , you might as well be giving it to the Chinese .
I doubt they respect NDA 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information gleaned from Google will probably give the US a little bit of an advantage in the coming cold war against China.
Additionally, this kind of cooperation without divulging proprietary code or sacrificing anyone's privacy would serve as a much needed template for other US companies to share vital attack info with the US government.
Right now every Chinese company probably gives the Chinese government full and unfettered access to their systems, a considerable advantage for the Chinese.
Democracy/capitalism is probably to the US's considerable disadvantage when it comes to cyber warfare/security.Of course, we know the US telcos have sold their soul to the NSA but maybe the information gleaned by having all US telco communications on tap is of limited use.
That kind of info isn't much help when Google (or any other company with offices in China) is attacked from within China, attacks enabled by inside Chinese employees doing their patriotic duty.This kind of issue is probably being very closely watched by any company with offices there - it probably goes without saying that if you keep your closely guarded proprietary code there, you might as well be giving it to the Chinese.
I doubt they respect NDA's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027110</id>
	<title>Don't be evil..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[or else!]</p><p>You may assume google's motto is "don't be evil", but it is actually a simple command. Who that command is directed at, and who defines what constitutes as "evil" remain unknown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ or else !
] You may assume google 's motto is " do n't be evil " , but it is actually a simple command .
Who that command is directed at , and who defines what constitutes as " evil " remain unknown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[or else!
]You may assume google's motto is "don't be evil", but it is actually a simple command.
Who that command is directed at, and who defines what constitutes as "evil" remain unknown.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026318</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA hate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They really do want to keep US systems secure</p></div><p>But not to the point where they can't get into these systems any more. And they want non-US systems to be insecure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady, like injecting backdoors into popular software.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">NSAKEY</a> [wikipedia.org] has been mentioned, for example.</p><p>And if they were only about security, why do they act with so much secrecy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really do want to keep US systems secureBut not to the point where they ca n't get into these systems any more .
And they want non-US systems to be insecure.I do n't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady , like injecting backdoors into popular software .
NSAKEY [ wikipedia.org ] has been mentioned , for example.And if they were only about security , why do they act with so much secrecy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really do want to keep US systems secureBut not to the point where they can't get into these systems any more.
And they want non-US systems to be insecure.I don't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady, like injecting backdoors into popular software.
NSAKEY [wikipedia.org] has been mentioned, for example.And if they were only about security, why do they act with so much secrecy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022576</id>
	<title>Google can Read Your Mind...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has always been able to use the things people are looking up for evil: if someone using Apple's IP googles a particular microchip's specs, you might infer from that that they might be thinking of using that chip soon.</p><p>How about a Chinese IP googling "openssl 0.9.6 exploit".. especially if that IP was just visiting www.$SOMESITE.gov, where the HTTP-headers mention it's using "openssl-0.9.6". Or a Saudi Arabian IP googling for flight info inside the US, and a few seconds later, a Yemeni IP opening up the same URL (hmm, although without that site's cooperation, the NSA won't be able to see that, or are they..?)</p><p>Such powers would be interesting, for the wielder. Not so much for victims of its inevitable abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has always been able to use the things people are looking up for evil : if someone using Apple 's IP googles a particular microchip 's specs , you might infer from that that they might be thinking of using that chip soon.How about a Chinese IP googling " openssl 0.9.6 exploit " .. especially if that IP was just visiting www. $ SOMESITE.gov , where the HTTP-headers mention it 's using " openssl-0.9.6 " .
Or a Saudi Arabian IP googling for flight info inside the US , and a few seconds later , a Yemeni IP opening up the same URL ( hmm , although without that site 's cooperation , the NSA wo n't be able to see that , or are they.. ?
) Such powers would be interesting , for the wielder .
Not so much for victims of its inevitable abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has always been able to use the things people are looking up for evil: if someone using Apple's IP googles a particular microchip's specs, you might infer from that that they might be thinking of using that chip soon.How about a Chinese IP googling "openssl 0.9.6 exploit".. especially if that IP was just visiting www.$SOMESITE.gov, where the HTTP-headers mention it's using "openssl-0.9.6".
Or a Saudi Arabian IP googling for flight info inside the US, and a few seconds later, a Yemeni IP opening up the same URL (hmm, although without that site's cooperation, the NSA won't be able to see that, or are they..?
)Such powers would be interesting, for the wielder.
Not so much for victims of its inevitable abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022110</id>
	<title>Really it means...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The objective is to better defend Google &mdash; and its users &mdash; from future attack.</p></div><p>The objective is to better defend Google &mdash; and its users &mdash; from future attack by someone other than NSA and...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The objective is to better defend Google    and its users    from future attack.The objective is to better defend Google    and its users    from future attack by someone other than NSA and.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack.The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack by someone other than NSA and...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022334</id>
	<title>If Google Needs The N.S.A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then Google IS evil.</p><p>Dear Google:</p><p>If you become a subsidiary of the N.S.A., would you please<br>restore the balance of the BushCo White Bunker e-mails not released as a result of the law suit.</p><p>Yours In Astrakhan,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then Google IS evil.Dear Google : If you become a subsidiary of the N.S.A. , would you pleaserestore the balance of the BushCo White Bunker e-mails not released as a result of the law suit.Yours In Astrakhan,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then Google IS evil.Dear Google:If you become a subsidiary of the N.S.A., would you pleaserestore the balance of the BushCo White Bunker e-mails not released as a result of the law suit.Yours In Astrakhan,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022484</id>
	<title>mod donwn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Like 7hey are Come</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like 7hey are Come [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like 7hey are Come [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022600</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265300400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the NSA indexes the web, people would notice, track back, mess with bots.<br>
If google does it and then 'sells the NSA the web (all of it with the robot pages sorted too) its ok.<br>
US embassy staff mapping your streets?  They would be followed in every city in the world.<br>
Google can do it and sells it back to the US gov.<br>
The US wants to track a phone, with NSA in the network, nobody uses a phone.<br>With google location marketing, its just a pest, but the tech stays on as you walk.<br>
Google is more dual use, anything the US needs, a google can do around the world.<br>
The NSA listens, sorts and tracks as google collects.<br>
This just makes it legal and lets some of the top NSA type to to googles top people to make a few changes.<br>
When any spy agency talks to the private sector in the open, its going to get real evil, real soon.<br>
IBM in the 1940's should really be a lesson.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the NSA indexes the web , people would notice , track back , mess with bots .
If google does it and then 'sells the NSA the web ( all of it with the robot pages sorted too ) its ok . US embassy staff mapping your streets ?
They would be followed in every city in the world .
Google can do it and sells it back to the US gov .
The US wants to track a phone , with NSA in the network , nobody uses a phone.With google location marketing , its just a pest , but the tech stays on as you walk .
Google is more dual use , anything the US needs , a google can do around the world .
The NSA listens , sorts and tracks as google collects .
This just makes it legal and lets some of the top NSA type to to googles top people to make a few changes .
When any spy agency talks to the private sector in the open , its going to get real evil , real soon .
IBM in the 1940 's should really be a lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the NSA indexes the web, people would notice, track back, mess with bots.
If google does it and then 'sells the NSA the web (all of it with the robot pages sorted too) its ok.
US embassy staff mapping your streets?
They would be followed in every city in the world.
Google can do it and sells it back to the US gov.
The US wants to track a phone, with NSA in the network, nobody uses a phone.With google location marketing, its just a pest, but the tech stays on as you walk.
Google is more dual use, anything the US needs, a google can do around the world.
The NSA listens, sorts and tracks as google collects.
This just makes it legal and lets some of the top NSA type to to googles top people to make a few changes.
When any spy agency talks to the private sector in the open, its going to get real evil, real soon.
IBM in the 1940's should really be a lesson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027936</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1265282760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is, what is Google really getting out of this?</p></div><p>Why is that? They done <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/index.shtml" title="nsa.gov">major linux developement</a> [nsa.gov] in SELinux and have been using computers since hollerith cards and magnetic drum storage. Their own <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/research/index.shtml" title="nsa.gov">website</a> [nsa.gov] talks about things like</p><blockquote><div><p>We develop the means to dominate the global computing and communications network.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Imagine working with the most sophisticated tools available and over-the-horizon technologies that won't come into commercial mainstream use for many years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Today, our work takes us into the worlds of knowledge discovery, advanced mathematics, quantum computing, nanotechnology, networking technologies, and, of course, computer systems security.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We especially need computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Come see what we see. We think you will find a career at NSA to be engaging and challenging.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like a computer geek's wetdream to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is , what is Google really getting out of this ? Why is that ?
They done major linux developement [ nsa.gov ] in SELinux and have been using computers since hollerith cards and magnetic drum storage .
Their own website [ nsa.gov ] talks about things likeWe develop the means to dominate the global computing and communications network .
.... Imagine working with the most sophisticated tools available and over-the-horizon technologies that wo n't come into commercial mainstream use for many years .
... Today , our work takes us into the worlds of knowledge discovery , advanced mathematics , quantum computing , nanotechnology , networking technologies , and , of course , computer systems security .
... We especially need computer scientists , mathematicians , and engineers .
Come see what we see .
We think you will find a career at NSA to be engaging and challenging.Sounds like a computer geek 's wetdream to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is, what is Google really getting out of this?Why is that?
They done major linux developement [nsa.gov] in SELinux and have been using computers since hollerith cards and magnetic drum storage.
Their own website [nsa.gov] talks about things likeWe develop the means to dominate the global computing and communications network.
.... Imagine working with the most sophisticated tools available and over-the-horizon technologies that won't come into commercial mainstream use for many years.
... Today, our work takes us into the worlds of knowledge discovery, advanced mathematics, quantum computing, nanotechnology, networking technologies, and, of course, computer systems security.
... We especially need computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Come see what we see.
We think you will find a career at NSA to be engaging and challenging.Sounds like a computer geek's wetdream to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31038816</id>
	<title>Govt. working for business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265361720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA, I heard you are now securing businesses networks.  Please come secure my networks.  I manage small business networks and could use the help!</p><p>WTF?  Just another example of the U.S. govt. mainly working for big money, not for the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA , I heard you are now securing businesses networks .
Please come secure my networks .
I manage small business networks and could use the help ! WTF ?
Just another example of the U.S. govt. mainly working for big money , not for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA, I heard you are now securing businesses networks.
Please come secure my networks.
I manage small business networks and could use the help!WTF?
Just another example of the U.S. govt. mainly working for big money, not for the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022436</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>Zen Hash</author>
	<datestamp>1265299680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NSA has probably captured additional communications related to the attack, aside from what went through Google's network. I'd imagine they generally have far more extensive resources and experience than Google, when it comes to capturing/analyzing communications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA has probably captured additional communications related to the attack , aside from what went through Google 's network .
I 'd imagine they generally have far more extensive resources and experience than Google , when it comes to capturing/analyzing communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA has probably captured additional communications related to the attack, aside from what went through Google's network.
I'd imagine they generally have far more extensive resources and experience than Google, when it comes to capturing/analyzing communications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022218</id>
	<title>simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google will save on security and the NSA will have more direct access to all the private information google handles, that's all. Neither care about you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will save on security and the NSA will have more direct access to all the private information google handles , that 's all .
Neither care about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will save on security and the NSA will have more direct access to all the private information google handles, that's all.
Neither care about you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298</id>
	<title>why NSA hate?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265303700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA are experts in systems security. We use their hardening guidelines to secure our servers. They really contribute good stuff to Linux security. They really do want to keep US systems secure. I don't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady, like  injecting backdoors into popular software. As far as I can tell, they break codes in one department, and help secure systems in another department. These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA are experts in systems security .
We use their hardening guidelines to secure our servers .
They really contribute good stuff to Linux security .
They really do want to keep US systems secure .
I do n't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady , like injecting backdoors into popular software .
As far as I can tell , they break codes in one department , and help secure systems in another department .
These are the good guys ( unlike the FBI , who are media-whoring , civil-rights-abusing porno-police ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA are experts in systems security.
We use their hardening guidelines to secure our servers.
They really contribute good stuff to Linux security.
They really do want to keep US systems secure.
I don't think anyone has ever seen them doing something truly shady, like  injecting backdoors into popular software.
As far as I can tell, they break codes in one department, and help secure systems in another department.
These are the good guys (unlike the FBI, who are media-whoring, civil-rights-abusing porno-police).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022352</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA: We need complete access to your gmail system.</p><p>Google: Alright! This is to help us with the recent China break-in, right?</p><p>NSA: Um, sure...</p><p>-----</p><p>Google: Well, we trust you and we like all the snappy salutes. Can you teach that to our workers?</p><p>NSA: You betcha.</p><p>Google:  And we'll be your server farm of choice going forward?</p><p>NSA: Yea, why not.</p><p>Google: And we can print our own currency? With your picture on it?</p><p>NSA: We are so all over that. But bag the pics.</p><p>Google: Deal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA : We need complete access to your gmail system.Google : Alright !
This is to help us with the recent China break-in , right ? NSA : Um , sure...-----Google : Well , we trust you and we like all the snappy salutes .
Can you teach that to our workers ? NSA : You betcha.Google : And we 'll be your server farm of choice going forward ? NSA : Yea , why not.Google : And we can print our own currency ?
With your picture on it ? NSA : We are so all over that .
But bag the pics.Google : Deal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA: We need complete access to your gmail system.Google: Alright!
This is to help us with the recent China break-in, right?NSA: Um, sure...-----Google: Well, we trust you and we like all the snappy salutes.
Can you teach that to our workers?NSA: You betcha.Google:  And we'll be your server farm of choice going forward?NSA: Yea, why not.Google: And we can print our own currency?
With your picture on it?NSA: We are so all over that.
But bag the pics.Google: Deal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022042</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pfft, I have long held that Google is just a front company for the NSA. Now it seems they are comfortable taking that relationship to the next level, out of the closet so to speak. (Adjusts his tin foil hat and returns to his regular viewing)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pfft , I have long held that Google is just a front company for the NSA .
Now it seems they are comfortable taking that relationship to the next level , out of the closet so to speak .
( Adjusts his tin foil hat and returns to his regular viewing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pfft, I have long held that Google is just a front company for the NSA.
Now it seems they are comfortable taking that relationship to the next level, out of the closet so to speak.
(Adjusts his tin foil hat and returns to his regular viewing)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025080</id>
	<title>Re:No evil</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265311980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t be evil&rdquo; motto is a joke.<br>It is factually impossible for a human to willingly do something that he thinks is evil.<br>He will either justify it in some way, no matter what... Or he will say that something forced him, which takes him out of the responsibility.</p><p>I think, subconsciously everybody who created that slogan, is perfectly aware of that, and did choose it because of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole    Don    t be evil    motto is a joke.It is factually impossible for a human to willingly do something that he thinks is evil.He will either justify it in some way , no matter what... Or he will say that something forced him , which takes him out of the responsibility.I think , subconsciously everybody who created that slogan , is perfectly aware of that , and did choose it because of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole “Don’t be evil” motto is a joke.It is factually impossible for a human to willingly do something that he thinks is evil.He will either justify it in some way, no matter what... Or he will say that something forced him, which takes him out of the responsibility.I think, subconsciously everybody who created that slogan, is perfectly aware of that, and did choose it because of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024304</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked.  Shocked, I Tell You.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265308440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wasn't their first cto or cso former head of nsa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was n't their first cto or cso former head of nsa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wasn't their first cto or cso former head of nsa?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025812</id>
	<title>Lets see the contract</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1265316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what the NSA's hourly rate is.  Surely Google is going to be paying them, right?  If the spooks are being paid by tax dollars and working for the public sector there is something shady going on there.  I'm all for the NSA and Google working together to make Google a more profitable comapany... Wait, no I'm not!  Given Google's current stock valuation, they can go right ahead and kick down some cash to the Treasury.  We're facing a how many trillion dollar deficit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the NSA 's hourly rate is .
Surely Google is going to be paying them , right ?
If the spooks are being paid by tax dollars and working for the public sector there is something shady going on there .
I 'm all for the NSA and Google working together to make Google a more profitable comapany... Wait , no I 'm not !
Given Google 's current stock valuation , they can go right ahead and kick down some cash to the Treasury .
We 're facing a how many trillion dollar deficit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the NSA's hourly rate is.
Surely Google is going to be paying them, right?
If the spooks are being paid by tax dollars and working for the public sector there is something shady going on there.
I'm all for the NSA and Google working together to make Google a more profitable comapany... Wait, no I'm not!
Given Google's current stock valuation, they can go right ahead and kick down some cash to the Treasury.
We're facing a how many trillion dollar deficit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022720</id>
	<title>Maybe the attack on Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265301000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...came from the NSA in the first place, just to get them to the point where they ask for cooperation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...came from the NSA in the first place , just to get them to the point where they ask for cooperation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...came from the NSA in the first place, just to get them to the point where they ask for cooperation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024614</id>
	<title>Re:IDK...</title>
	<author>mschirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1265309820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what is Google really getting out of this?</p></div><p>Public and official political backing from the U.S.</p><p>This will put more pressure on China for threat of other multi-nationals pulling part or all of their business out of the communist state.</p><p>At the moment the U.S. can't denounce the attacks officially because they don't have any connection other than a U.S. based business was supposedly attacked by Chinese operatives. By bringing in a U.S. government organization in to the mix, Google can put more pressure on the Chinese government for answers and immunity from future attacks.</p><p>Saying all that, I'm sure that this communication band between the NSA and Google means nothing in the grand scheme of it all. China will continue to operate as it has in the past, regardless if Google pulls out of China or not, and I don't think it's going to affect any of the other multi-nationals operating in China. Money vs a bit of bad publicity from attacks or security breaches over a few years, most will take the money and deal with the circumstances when they arise. So I don't see anyone else following Google's footsteps if they do pull out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is Google really getting out of this ? Public and official political backing from the U.S.This will put more pressure on China for threat of other multi-nationals pulling part or all of their business out of the communist state.At the moment the U.S. ca n't denounce the attacks officially because they do n't have any connection other than a U.S. based business was supposedly attacked by Chinese operatives .
By bringing in a U.S. government organization in to the mix , Google can put more pressure on the Chinese government for answers and immunity from future attacks.Saying all that , I 'm sure that this communication band between the NSA and Google means nothing in the grand scheme of it all .
China will continue to operate as it has in the past , regardless if Google pulls out of China or not , and I do n't think it 's going to affect any of the other multi-nationals operating in China .
Money vs a bit of bad publicity from attacks or security breaches over a few years , most will take the money and deal with the circumstances when they arise .
So I do n't see anyone else following Google 's footsteps if they do pull out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is Google really getting out of this?Public and official political backing from the U.S.This will put more pressure on China for threat of other multi-nationals pulling part or all of their business out of the communist state.At the moment the U.S. can't denounce the attacks officially because they don't have any connection other than a U.S. based business was supposedly attacked by Chinese operatives.
By bringing in a U.S. government organization in to the mix, Google can put more pressure on the Chinese government for answers and immunity from future attacks.Saying all that, I'm sure that this communication band between the NSA and Google means nothing in the grand scheme of it all.
China will continue to operate as it has in the past, regardless if Google pulls out of China or not, and I don't think it's going to affect any of the other multi-nationals operating in China.
Money vs a bit of bad publicity from attacks or security breaches over a few years, most will take the money and deal with the circumstances when they arise.
So I don't see anyone else following Google's footsteps if they do pull out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024524</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1265309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they ask for something they already have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they ask for something they already have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they ask for something they already have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022038</id>
	<title>joint-venture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As part of the agreement a new slogan to be used jointly by both Google and the NSA has been implemented:</p><p>"No Such Evil"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As part of the agreement a new slogan to be used jointly by both Google and the NSA has been implemented : " No Such Evil " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As part of the agreement a new slogan to be used jointly by both Google and the NSA has been implemented:"No Such Evil" ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022584</id>
	<title>Re:Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>bberens</author>
	<datestamp>1265300340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conspiracy theory #1:  Google wouldn't let the NSA in (as much as NSA wanted).  NSA makes it look like someone in China hacked Google.  NSA comes to the rescue in exchange for protection money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiracy theory # 1 : Google would n't let the NSA in ( as much as NSA wanted ) .
NSA makes it look like someone in China hacked Google .
NSA comes to the rescue in exchange for protection money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiracy theory #1:  Google wouldn't let the NSA in (as much as NSA wanted).
NSA makes it look like someone in China hacked Google.
NSA comes to the rescue in exchange for protection money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022074</id>
	<title>Defend its users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can defend myself perfectly well, by using the correct tool for the job:</p><p>Self hosted mail server: Business, personal, anarchism.<br>Gmail: Fwding Lolcats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can defend myself perfectly well , by using the correct tool for the job : Self hosted mail server : Business , personal , anarchism.Gmail : Fwding Lolcats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can defend myself perfectly well, by using the correct tool for the job:Self hosted mail server: Business, personal, anarchism.Gmail: Fwding Lolcats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023942</id>
	<title>Re:why NSA hate?</title>
	<author>Webster9</author>
	<datestamp>1265306880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are the good guys</p></div><p>

Sure. As long as your definition of "Good Guys" includes domestic warrantless wiretapping.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the good guys Sure .
As long as your definition of " Good Guys " includes domestic warrantless wiretapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the good guys

Sure.
As long as your definition of "Good Guys" includes domestic warrantless wiretapping.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140</id>
	<title>Shocked.   Shocked, I Tell You.</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1265298180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA, I've got a wall in China I want to sell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA , I 've got a wall in China I want to sell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone thinks this is the first collaboration between Google and the NSA, I've got a wall in China I want to sell you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022424</id>
	<title>post chinese leaders' emails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chinese people would love to hear about their bribes and mistresses.
The NSA must have these if they exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese people would love to hear about their bribes and mistresses .
The NSA must have these if they exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese people would love to hear about their bribes and mistresses.
The NSA must have these if they exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022608</id>
	<title>Re:Defend its users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cloud computing has interesting security implications.</p><p>The IT security team protecting Gmail are better at security than the team protecting your average datacenter, and they are FAR better at security than your average small business or home user "IT security team."</p><p>But on the other hand, far more attackers are going to try far harder to get into gmail than to get into your small business mail server.</p><p>So how do these factors balance out? On the whole, I think medium-to-large businesses with dedicated IT security staff will provide better security than you would get by cloudsourced IT; but the small businesses with no dedicated IT security staff really would be better off, from a security perspective, sending their IT systems to "the cloud."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing has interesting security implications.The IT security team protecting Gmail are better at security than the team protecting your average datacenter , and they are FAR better at security than your average small business or home user " IT security team .
" But on the other hand , far more attackers are going to try far harder to get into gmail than to get into your small business mail server.So how do these factors balance out ?
On the whole , I think medium-to-large businesses with dedicated IT security staff will provide better security than you would get by cloudsourced IT ; but the small businesses with no dedicated IT security staff really would be better off , from a security perspective , sending their IT systems to " the cloud .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing has interesting security implications.The IT security team protecting Gmail are better at security than the team protecting your average datacenter, and they are FAR better at security than your average small business or home user "IT security team.
"But on the other hand, far more attackers are going to try far harder to get into gmail than to get into your small business mail server.So how do these factors balance out?
On the whole, I think medium-to-large businesses with dedicated IT security staff will provide better security than you would get by cloudsourced IT; but the small businesses with no dedicated IT security staff really would be better off, from a security perspective, sending their IT systems to "the cloud.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022706</id>
	<title>Strange...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...i thought Google <em>is</em> the NSA?</p><p>Thanks, thans. Do try the salmon.</p><p>(captcha, BTW is "specter" -- maybe Slashdot is the NSA after all. Head hurts)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...i thought Google is the NSA ? Thanks , thans .
Do try the salmon .
( captcha , BTW is " specter " -- maybe Slashdot is the NSA after all .
Head hurts )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...i thought Google is the NSA?Thanks, thans.
Do try the salmon.
(captcha, BTW is "specter" -- maybe Slashdot is the NSA after all.
Head hurts)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027630</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward Trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got it wrong.</p><p>Google is evil.<br>US Government is evil.<br>China is a evil.</p><p>Some are just more or less evil than others.</p><p>It all comes down to one simple rule of thumb: humans with power usually tend to combine their power to gain more power over their fellow man, and that's the essence and root of all evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got it wrong.Google is evil.US Government is evil.China is a evil.Some are just more or less evil than others.It all comes down to one simple rule of thumb : humans with power usually tend to combine their power to gain more power over their fellow man , and that 's the essence and root of all evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got it wrong.Google is evil.US Government is evil.China is a evil.Some are just more or less evil than others.It all comes down to one simple rule of thumb: humans with power usually tend to combine their power to gain more power over their fellow man, and that's the essence and root of all evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022666</id>
	<title>So what</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1265300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATT routes all (yes all) their traffic thru the NSA<br><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/11/ex-att-employee-nsa-snooping-internet-traffic-too.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/11/ex-att-employee-nsa-snooping-internet-traffic-too.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>This move from Google is more political the security oriented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATT routes all ( yes all ) their traffic thru the NSAhttp : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/11/ex-att-employee-nsa-snooping-internet-traffic-too.ars [ arstechnica.com ] This move from Google is more political the security oriented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATT routes all (yes all) their traffic thru the NSAhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/11/ex-att-employee-nsa-snooping-internet-traffic-too.ars [arstechnica.com]This move from Google is more political the security oriented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023000</id>
	<title>My question is this:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265302440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we all being told to cut back and make do with less, when our leaders insist on taking more and spending more of our money?</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap\_on\_go\_co/us\_congress\_debt\_limit" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap\_on\_go\_co/us\_congress\_debt\_limit</a> [yahoo.com]</p><p>If you're too dumb to understand this basic inequality, then you have no business running for public office: if (money\_in - money\_out is less than 0) then (bad\_things\_happen).  I keep wondering when China is going to cut up our credit card.  Perhaps if we keep interfering with Taiwan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we all being told to cut back and make do with less , when our leaders insist on taking more and spending more of our money ? http : //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap \ _on \ _go \ _co/us \ _congress \ _debt \ _limit [ yahoo.com ] If you 're too dumb to understand this basic inequality , then you have no business running for public office : if ( money \ _in - money \ _out is less than 0 ) then ( bad \ _things \ _happen ) .
I keep wondering when China is going to cut up our credit card .
Perhaps if we keep interfering with Taiwan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we all being told to cut back and make do with less, when our leaders insist on taking more and spending more of our money?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap\_on\_go\_co/us\_congress\_debt\_limit [yahoo.com]If you're too dumb to understand this basic inequality, then you have no business running for public office: if (money\_in - money\_out is less than 0) then (bad\_things\_happen).
I keep wondering when China is going to cut up our credit card.
Perhaps if we keep interfering with Taiwan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214</id>
	<title>IDK...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is, what is Google really getting out of this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is , what is Google really getting out of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe the NSA really has better computer experts than Google...the real question is, what is Google really getting out of this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026686</id>
	<title>Re:Defend its users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265276640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, but a really small business is very unlikely to be something worthwhile to attack. The hosting decision is really more likely to get made based on budget - compare $50/mo for 10 users and no hassles to buying a server, learning to run the thing, eats up some portion of an employee that you need to be doing something else, etc. Even if Google is owned (probably is still owned, they just don't know it, or don't want to admit it), it probably won't matter to the small business owner as long as their mail keeps going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but a really small business is very unlikely to be something worthwhile to attack .
The hosting decision is really more likely to get made based on budget - compare $ 50/mo for 10 users and no hassles to buying a server , learning to run the thing , eats up some portion of an employee that you need to be doing something else , etc .
Even if Google is owned ( probably is still owned , they just do n't know it , or do n't want to admit it ) , it probably wo n't matter to the small business owner as long as their mail keeps going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but a really small business is very unlikely to be something worthwhile to attack.
The hosting decision is really more likely to get made based on budget - compare $50/mo for 10 users and no hassles to buying a server, learning to run the thing, eats up some portion of an employee that you need to be doing something else, etc.
Even if Google is owned (probably is still owned, they just don't know it, or don't want to admit it), it probably won't matter to the small business owner as long as their mail keeps going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022204</id>
	<title>How to calculate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if ( Evil( Google + NSA )  Evil( China ) ) then Allow( NSA );</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( Evil ( Google + NSA ) Evil ( China ) ) then Allow ( NSA ) ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if ( Evil( Google + NSA )  Evil( China ) ) then Allow( NSA );</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970</id>
	<title>Conversation between Google and NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA: We need complete access to your gmail system.</p><p>Google: Alright! This is to help us with the recent China break-in, right?</p><p>NSA: Um, sure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA : We need complete access to your gmail system.Google : Alright !
This is to help us with the recent China break-in , right ? NSA : Um , sure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA: We need complete access to your gmail system.Google: Alright!
This is to help us with the recent China break-in, right?NSA: Um, sure...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_131224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31021970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31027936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31023934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31026318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31024678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31022110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_131224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_131224.31025812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
