<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_2252214</id>
	<title>FAA Data Shows Exploding Batteries Are Rare, Small Risk</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265887380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ericatcw writes <i>"While the US government is intent on <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1167030/US-rules-may-raise-cost-of-buying-gadgets-online">adding new rules around the shipment and carrying of Lithium-Ion batteries</a> on passenger and cargo planes, data from its own Federal Aviation Agency show that the risk of being on an airplane where someone &mdash; not necessarily you &mdash; suffers a minor injury due to a battery is <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9155658/Exploding\_batteries\_on\_planes\_Rare\_and\_small\_risk\_">only one in 28 million</a>, reports Computerworld, which analyzed the data (<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9155898/Interactive\_chart\_FAA\_reports\_of\_battery\_incidents">skip to the chart here</a>) using the free <a href="http://www.tableaupublic.com/">Tableau Public</a> data visualization service. Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely. Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers and consumers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ericatcw writes " While the US government is intent on adding new rules around the shipment and carrying of Lithium-Ion batteries on passenger and cargo planes , data from its own Federal Aviation Agency show that the risk of being on an airplane where someone    not necessarily you    suffers a minor injury due to a battery is only one in 28 million , reports Computerworld , which analyzed the data ( skip to the chart here ) using the free Tableau Public data visualization service .
Getting killed in a car accident , by contrast , is 4,300 times more likely .
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers and consumers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ericatcw writes "While the US government is intent on adding new rules around the shipment and carrying of Lithium-Ion batteries on passenger and cargo planes, data from its own Federal Aviation Agency show that the risk of being on an airplane where someone — not necessarily you — suffers a minor injury due to a battery is only one in 28 million, reports Computerworld, which analyzed the data (skip to the chart here) using the free Tableau Public data visualization service.
Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers and consumers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108972</id>
	<title>Re:Are people looking at the right proposal?</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265903820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who can't read the links they're providing. As I said a few times in the other post, the proper cite is <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7b3a7" title="regulations.gov">PHMSA-2009-0095</a> [regulations.gov].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who ca n't read the links they 're providing .
As I said a few times in the other post , the proper cite is PHMSA-2009-0095 [ regulations.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who can't read the links they're providing.
As I said a few times in the other post, the proper cite is PHMSA-2009-0095 [regulations.gov].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108540</id>
	<title>Shipping warning labels for li-ion batteries</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1265899860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a Nexus One, and they give you free overnight FedEx shipping, meaning it traveled on a cargo plane to get to me. There's a huge label on the shipping box warning about the lithium-ion battery inside, and that the carrier shouldn't handle the box if it is damaged. I was pretty surprised to see that on there; kind of stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a Nexus One , and they give you free overnight FedEx shipping , meaning it traveled on a cargo plane to get to me .
There 's a huge label on the shipping box warning about the lithium-ion battery inside , and that the carrier should n't handle the box if it is damaged .
I was pretty surprised to see that on there ; kind of stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a Nexus One, and they give you free overnight FedEx shipping, meaning it traveled on a cargo plane to get to me.
There's a huge label on the shipping box warning about the lithium-ion battery inside, and that the carrier shouldn't handle the box if it is damaged.
I was pretty surprised to see that on there; kind of stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107576</id>
	<title>Are people looking at the right proposal?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265893740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539726&amp;pid=31045934#31046028" title="slashdot.org">this post</a> [slashdot.org] and followups, the rulemaking that people are quoting is already in force.</p><p>In particular this comment by bwcbwc:</p><blockquote><div><p>The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.</p><p>Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.</p><p>"Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) * * *<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must<br>be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the<br>provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries<br>(UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying<br>aircraft.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to<br>packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal<br>cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment<br>(UN3091).<br>"</p><p>There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this post [ slashdot.org ] and followups , the rulemaking that people are quoting is already in force.In particular this comment by bwcbwc : The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January .
The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent .
And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries .
Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.Do n't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists. " Sec .
171.12 North American shipments .
                ( a ) * * *                 ( 6 ) Lithium cells and batteries .
Lithium cells and batteries mustbe offered for transport and transported in accordance with theprovisions of this subchapter .
Lithium metal cells and batteries ( UN3090 ) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carryingaircraft .
                ( i ) The provisions of this paragraph ( a ) ( 6 ) do not apply topackages that contain 5 kg ( 11 pounds ) net weight or less lithium metalcells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment ( UN3091 ) .
" There are similar provisions for international travel , but citing a different regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this post [slashdot.org] and followups, the rulemaking that people are quoting is already in force.In particular this comment by bwcbwc:The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January.
The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent.
And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries.
Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists."Sec.
171.12 North American shipments.
                (a) * * *
                (6) Lithium cells and batteries.
Lithium cells and batteries mustbe offered for transport and transported in accordance with theprovisions of this subchapter.
Lithium metal cells and batteries(UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carryingaircraft.
                (i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply topackages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metalcells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment(UN3091).
"There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111020</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265974020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Low risk high impact (like death), take actions to prevent it.</p><blockquote><div><p>There is a difference between preventing and taking actions that will be worse then what will be prevented. Now what is worse then death you might ask? Forbidding people to take that kind of batteries or any kind of batteries on board of a plane. TAking actions where millions of people need to change their values or way of life.</p><p>Death is part of life and is something we should accept. We drive cars and people die. We build houses and people die doing that. People live in areas where they KNOW there will be an earthquake and sooner or later which will result in death.</p><p>And we are talking about <b>minor injury to someone</b> not even death. No explosions that will blow up a plane. No fireball in the sky.</p><p>To me the low impact, high risk should be treated the same as high impact low risk. Look at it and take measures appropriately.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Low risk high impact ( like death ) , take actions to prevent it.There is a difference between preventing and taking actions that will be worse then what will be prevented .
Now what is worse then death you might ask ?
Forbidding people to take that kind of batteries or any kind of batteries on board of a plane .
TAking actions where millions of people need to change their values or way of life.Death is part of life and is something we should accept .
We drive cars and people die .
We build houses and people die doing that .
People live in areas where they KNOW there will be an earthquake and sooner or later which will result in death.And we are talking about minor injury to someone not even death .
No explosions that will blow up a plane .
No fireball in the sky.To me the low impact , high risk should be treated the same as high impact low risk .
Look at it and take measures appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Low risk high impact (like death), take actions to prevent it.There is a difference between preventing and taking actions that will be worse then what will be prevented.
Now what is worse then death you might ask?
Forbidding people to take that kind of batteries or any kind of batteries on board of a plane.
TAking actions where millions of people need to change their values or way of life.Death is part of life and is something we should accept.
We drive cars and people die.
We build houses and people die doing that.
People live in areas where they KNOW there will be an earthquake and sooner or later which will result in death.And we are talking about minor injury to someone not even death.
No explosions that will blow up a plane.
No fireball in the sky.To me the low impact, high risk should be treated the same as high impact low risk.
Look at it and take measures appropriately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108798</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1265902260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too. It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Right on, one simple measure is to have all the seats face backwards.  People have known that this arrangement is much safer for <a href="http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Aft-Facing-Seats.html" title="airspacemag.com" rel="nofollow">around 50 years</a> [airspacemag.com] but nothing is done.  So much for safety being the top priority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further , and if it saves even one life , we should enact them , too .
It 's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do .
Right on , one simple measure is to have all the seats face backwards .
People have known that this arrangement is much safer for around 50 years [ airspacemag.com ] but nothing is done .
So much for safety being the top priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too.
It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.
Right on, one simple measure is to have all the seats face backwards.
People have known that this arrangement is much safer for around 50 years [airspacemag.com] but nothing is done.
So much for safety being the top priority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</id>
	<title>If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265891640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower.  Cut the speeds by half or more.  No one <em>needs</em> to travel 500mph.  That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill.  We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5\%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.</p><p>There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too.  It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower .
Cut the speeds by half or more .
No one needs to travel 500mph .
That 's just an unnecessary luxury , nay , an irresponsible thrill .
We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5 \ % , and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground , so that in the event of a lift failure , there 's not far to fall.There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further , and if it saves even one life , we should enact them , too .
It 's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower.
Cut the speeds by half or more.
No one needs to travel 500mph.
That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill.
We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5\%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too.
It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108760</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1265901960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My life is immensely valuable.  It's the value of everyone else's life that's in question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My life is immensely valuable .
It 's the value of everyone else 's life that 's in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My life is immensely valuable.
It's the value of everyone else's life that's in question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107356</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of Amtrak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of Amtrak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of Amtrak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109306</id>
	<title>$129,000/man-year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html</p><p>Seems that this value is well studied. So you take the average person's remaining life expectancy times the worth of a human life/year, and there you have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.htmlSeems that this value is well studied .
So you take the average person 's remaining life expectancy times the worth of a human life/year , and there you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.htmlSeems that this value is well studied.
So you take the average person's remaining life expectancy times the worth of a human life/year, and there you have it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111734</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $500,000 for each life saved. Sure, every loving parent wants their kid safe, but for that cost, you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUV</p></div><p>This is probably the dumbest thing anyone will say on slashdot today, and I do realize the enormity of such a statement. No SUV is the most popular vehicle on the American road. It's pretty much always a Japanese sedan. It was the Camry for a long time, and now it's the Civic. Unless it's changed again recently. A child seat is an insurance policy. There's not $500,000 available to each child seat buyer if we stop buying child seats. And since a passenger car is cheaper to purchase and operate than an SUV, your comment becomes even more nonsensical.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I go in today, and it's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery! It's idiotic - as if the human mouth wasn't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body!</p></div><p>And yet, a careless dirty finger can give you gingivitis.</p><p>You're trolling right? Nobody is this dumb.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this "protection"? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it. But I still get to pay extra for all that...</p></div><p>And yet, your supposedly similar examples are not at all similar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $ 500,000 for each life saved .
Sure , every loving parent wants their kid safe , but for that cost , you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUVThis is probably the dumbest thing anyone will say on slashdot today , and I do realize the enormity of such a statement .
No SUV is the most popular vehicle on the American road .
It 's pretty much always a Japanese sedan .
It was the Camry for a long time , and now it 's the Civic .
Unless it 's changed again recently .
A child seat is an insurance policy .
There 's not $ 500,000 available to each child seat buyer if we stop buying child seats .
And since a passenger car is cheaper to purchase and operate than an SUV , your comment becomes even more nonsensical.I go in today , and it 's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery !
It 's idiotic - as if the human mouth was n't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body ! And yet , a careless dirty finger can give you gingivitis.You 're trolling right ?
Nobody is this dumb.Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this " protection " ?
Somehow , I sincerely doubt it .
But I still get to pay extra for all that...And yet , your supposedly similar examples are not at all similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $500,000 for each life saved.
Sure, every loving parent wants their kid safe, but for that cost, you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUVThis is probably the dumbest thing anyone will say on slashdot today, and I do realize the enormity of such a statement.
No SUV is the most popular vehicle on the American road.
It's pretty much always a Japanese sedan.
It was the Camry for a long time, and now it's the Civic.
Unless it's changed again recently.
A child seat is an insurance policy.
There's not $500,000 available to each child seat buyer if we stop buying child seats.
And since a passenger car is cheaper to purchase and operate than an SUV, your comment becomes even more nonsensical.I go in today, and it's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery!
It's idiotic - as if the human mouth wasn't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body!And yet, a careless dirty finger can give you gingivitis.You're trolling right?
Nobody is this dumb.Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this "protection"?
Somehow, I sincerely doubt it.
But I still get to pay extra for all that...And yet, your supposedly similar examples are not at all similar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108652</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>woopate</author>
	<datestamp>1265901000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I've always wondered how easily one could induce a Lithium battery's explosion, and if one could manage it on a flight. Even though the explosion would be small, and only one or two people would suffer minor injuries, and, if you're damn lucky, pierce the hull and cause a decompression and the masks to fall out.</p><p>But despite it's low effectiveness in killing everyone on board, it would set the media off. I mean, seriously, a BOMB actually going off on an AIRPLANE in FLIGHT?  That'd go a long way to meet the supposed terrorist agenda of reducing our freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 've always wondered how easily one could induce a Lithium battery 's explosion , and if one could manage it on a flight .
Even though the explosion would be small , and only one or two people would suffer minor injuries , and , if you 're damn lucky , pierce the hull and cause a decompression and the masks to fall out.But despite it 's low effectiveness in killing everyone on board , it would set the media off .
I mean , seriously , a BOMB actually going off on an AIRPLANE in FLIGHT ?
That 'd go a long way to meet the supposed terrorist agenda of reducing our freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I've always wondered how easily one could induce a Lithium battery's explosion, and if one could manage it on a flight.
Even though the explosion would be small, and only one or two people would suffer minor injuries, and, if you're damn lucky, pierce the hull and cause a decompression and the masks to fall out.But despite it's low effectiveness in killing everyone on board, it would set the media off.
I mean, seriously, a BOMB actually going off on an AIRPLANE in FLIGHT?
That'd go a long way to meet the supposed terrorist agenda of reducing our freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108526</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265899740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darn, there goes that excuse to the boss for ending up in Cuba.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darn , there goes that excuse to the boss for ending up in Cuba .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darn, there goes that excuse to the boss for ending up in Cuba.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108358</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265898360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Score +1: Sarcasm. Bazinga implied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Score + 1 : Sarcasm .
Bazinga implied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Score +1: Sarcasm.
Bazinga implied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.</p></div><p>That's because hindsight is 20/20.  If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?" and people start shaking their fists.  I personally blame the sensationalist media.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is all about perceived risk , not actual risk.That 's because hindsight is 20/20 .
If a battery explodes and downs a flight , suddenly lots of noisy people are going " Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place ? ! ? ! ?
" and people start shaking their fists .
I personally blame the sensationalist media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.That's because hindsight is 20/20.
If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?
" and people start shaking their fists.
I personally blame the sensationalist media.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108700</id>
	<title>Studies show hetrosexuals rare in Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And they often abandon the shit eating OS after they find out that the community is infested with faggot cock smokers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they often abandon the shit eating OS after they find out that the community is infested with faggot cock smokers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they often abandon the shit eating OS after they find out that the community is infested with faggot cock smokers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107916</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265895420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference being that batteries don't become more encouraged to explode when other batteries explode and the damage caused by battery explosions is minimal at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference being that batteries do n't become more encouraged to explode when other batteries explode and the damage caused by battery explosions is minimal at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference being that batteries don't become more encouraged to explode when other batteries explode and the damage caused by battery explosions is minimal at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111840</id>
	<title>Re:and presumably ...</title>
	<author>KillaBeave</author>
	<datestamp>1265983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Raise the cost of shipping electronics?  Sounds like quite a boon to Best Buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raise the cost of shipping electronics ?
Sounds like quite a boon to Best Buy .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raise the cost of shipping electronics?
Sounds like quite a boon to Best Buy ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060</id>
	<title>Perspective.</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1265891280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.</p></div><p>That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting killed in a car accident , by contrast , is 4,300 times more likely.That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists ; look how calmly we are responding to that threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112042</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265985420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had it with these motherfucking cars on this motherfucking plane!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had it with these motherfucking cars on this motherfucking plane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had it with these motherfucking cars on this motherfucking plane!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109706</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1265911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MIT students are supposed to be smart. TSA are supposed to be dumb (it's a dumb activity you don't expect smart people apply to it). Her being almost shot for doing this was expected if TSA people are dumb. Ergo, what she did was dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MIT students are supposed to be smart .
TSA are supposed to be dumb ( it 's a dumb activity you do n't expect smart people apply to it ) .
Her being almost shot for doing this was expected if TSA people are dumb .
Ergo , what she did was dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MIT students are supposed to be smart.
TSA are supposed to be dumb (it's a dumb activity you don't expect smart people apply to it).
Her being almost shot for doing this was expected if TSA people are dumb.
Ergo, what she did was dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109480</id>
	<title>One in 28,000,000, eh?</title>
	<author>SeaFox</author>
	<datestamp>1265909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall reading the chance of being in a plane crash are 1 in 20,000.</p><p>The government better shut down the airlines and give us all our Lithium-ion batteries back for public safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall reading the chance of being in a plane crash are 1 in 20,000.The government better shut down the airlines and give us all our Lithium-ion batteries back for public safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall reading the chance of being in a plane crash are 1 in 20,000.The government better shut down the airlines and give us all our Lithium-ion batteries back for public safety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107382</id>
	<title>Thank you Randall Munroe</title>
	<author>Nexzus</author>
	<datestamp>1265892600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Probably not the first.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>//Definitely won't be the last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ] /Probably not the first .
//Definitely wo n't be the last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com] /Probably not the first.
//Definitely won't be the last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100</id>
	<title>Not the Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is with <strong>intentional</strong> detonation.  Nobody (sane) is saying that li-ion batteries pose a safety hazard from accidental detonations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is with intentional detonation .
Nobody ( sane ) is saying that li-ion batteries pose a safety hazard from accidental detonations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is with intentional detonation.
Nobody (sane) is saying that li-ion batteries pose a safety hazard from accidental detonations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107368</id>
	<title>Probably risk</title>
	<author>Binder</author>
	<datestamp>1265892540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and what is the probability of someone successfully blowing up a plane using liquids?<br>zero!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and what is the probability of someone successfully blowing up a plane using liquids ? zero !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what is the probability of someone successfully blowing up a plane using liquids?zero!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31114620</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1265996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a fan of people yapping on their cell phones, even though I do myself.</p><p>But the need isn't to CALL OUT, as you might recall, but people GETTING info.  The people on the other three planes didn't know anything, but rapid distribution of information makes a difference in safety.</p><p>Besides, I don't find people yapping on cell phones as nearly as annoying as paying billions in tax dollars to support security theater that doesn't make me safer.  I'd just like policy to be based on reality rather than something that is more like reality T.V.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a fan of people yapping on their cell phones , even though I do myself.But the need is n't to CALL OUT , as you might recall , but people GETTING info .
The people on the other three planes did n't know anything , but rapid distribution of information makes a difference in safety.Besides , I do n't find people yapping on cell phones as nearly as annoying as paying billions in tax dollars to support security theater that does n't make me safer .
I 'd just like policy to be based on reality rather than something that is more like reality T.V .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a fan of people yapping on their cell phones, even though I do myself.But the need isn't to CALL OUT, as you might recall, but people GETTING info.
The people on the other three planes didn't know anything, but rapid distribution of information makes a difference in safety.Besides, I don't find people yapping on cell phones as nearly as annoying as paying billions in tax dollars to support security theater that doesn't make me safer.
I'd just like policy to be based on reality rather than something that is more like reality T.V.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107854</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD link</title>
	<author>Fifth Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1265895060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108576</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>ravenspear</author>
	<datestamp>1265900220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's more actual risk from 'motherfucking snakes' on the plane than from batteries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more actual risk from 'motherfucking snakes ' on the plane than from batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more actual risk from 'motherfucking snakes' on the plane than from batteries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107158</id>
	<title>oblig xkcd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109556</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1265910300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each. But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each (aka, it will likely never save a single life), certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.</i></p><p>It's rare to see somebody who understands this! But, of course, this is Slashdot and NOT the MSM (Main-Street-Media) which is today all about getting people worked up over SOMETHING regardless of the cost to greater society. (Witness: the idiocy around vaccinations - some researcher does some laughably bad science, people get excited about it, and suddenly it's not so laughable anymore)</p><p>I find it astounding that, when implementing safety regulations, there isn't even the concept that the impact of the regulation isn't even considered.</p><p>I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $500,000 for each life saved. Sure, every loving parent wants their kid safe, but for that cost, you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUV, and not only save far more lives than the infant safety seats, but do so with a significant net savings! (the vehicle with the least fatalities is a mid-sized, 5-seat sedan)</p><p>Another example, when I was a kid, going to the dentist meant that I saw the dentist. He stuck his fingers in my mouth, drilled out the cavity, whatever, and then filled it. Wearing gloves was simply not done (washing hands in the little sink next to the chair was expected) and face masks were rare.</p><p>I go in today, and it's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery! It's idiotic - as if the human mouth wasn't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body!</p><p>Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this "protection"? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it. But I still get to pay extra for all that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each .
But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each ( aka , it will likely never save a single life ) , certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.It 's rare to see somebody who understands this !
But , of course , this is Slashdot and NOT the MSM ( Main-Street-Media ) which is today all about getting people worked up over SOMETHING regardless of the cost to greater society .
( Witness : the idiocy around vaccinations - some researcher does some laughably bad science , people get excited about it , and suddenly it 's not so laughable anymore ) I find it astounding that , when implementing safety regulations , there is n't even the concept that the impact of the regulation is n't even considered.I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $ 500,000 for each life saved .
Sure , every loving parent wants their kid safe , but for that cost , you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUV , and not only save far more lives than the infant safety seats , but do so with a significant net savings !
( the vehicle with the least fatalities is a mid-sized , 5-seat sedan ) Another example , when I was a kid , going to the dentist meant that I saw the dentist .
He stuck his fingers in my mouth , drilled out the cavity , whatever , and then filled it .
Wearing gloves was simply not done ( washing hands in the little sink next to the chair was expected ) and face masks were rare.I go in today , and it 's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery !
It 's idiotic - as if the human mouth was n't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body ! Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this " protection " ?
Somehow , I sincerely doubt it .
But I still get to pay extra for all that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each.
But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each (aka, it will likely never save a single life), certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.It's rare to see somebody who understands this!
But, of course, this is Slashdot and NOT the MSM (Main-Street-Media) which is today all about getting people worked up over SOMETHING regardless of the cost to greater society.
(Witness: the idiocy around vaccinations - some researcher does some laughably bad science, people get excited about it, and suddenly it's not so laughable anymore)I find it astounding that, when implementing safety regulations, there isn't even the concept that the impact of the regulation isn't even considered.I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $500,000 for each life saved.
Sure, every loving parent wants their kid safe, but for that cost, you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUV, and not only save far more lives than the infant safety seats, but do so with a significant net savings!
(the vehicle with the least fatalities is a mid-sized, 5-seat sedan)Another example, when I was a kid, going to the dentist meant that I saw the dentist.
He stuck his fingers in my mouth, drilled out the cavity, whatever, and then filled it.
Wearing gloves was simply not done (washing hands in the little sink next to the chair was expected) and face masks were rare.I go in today, and it's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery!
It's idiotic - as if the human mouth wasn't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body!Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this "protection"?
Somehow, I sincerely doubt it.
But I still get to pay extra for all that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110268</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1266006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this value should be tested by immediately pointing a gun to the head of anyone making the claim, and demanding $7,000,001 and seeing if they think it's not worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this value should be tested by immediately pointing a gun to the head of anyone making the claim , and demanding $ 7,000,001 and seeing if they think it 's not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this value should be tested by immediately pointing a gun to the head of anyone making the claim, and demanding $7,000,001 and seeing if they think it's not worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109028</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1265904360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cellphone ban exists for 2 reasons:<br>1.Although evidence to date hasn't backed up the "cellphones are dangerous to aircraft systems" argument, the testing that has been done has not tested all combinations of cellphones and aircraft systems (and seats where the cellphone user is sitting) and therefore there may be a situation where a cellphone sends out radiation that does interfere with an aircraft system.<br>and 2.Regardless of the effect on aircraft systems, any cellphone would be seeing so many towers at once (if it wasnt too high up to see any at all) that it would cause issues with the mobile network.</p><p>As for security, show me any modern aircraft with a standard set of equipment present (even before baggage, cargo and passengers are loaded) and I can find ways to kill people with that equipment. Or even to damage the planes systems enough to cause serious problems for the pilots (especially if I can access the hatchways into the avionics bays, cargo areas etc)</p><p>Banning knitting needles, bottled water and nail files has done nothing to make flying safer. It was done to make the sheeple (who dont know any better) feel safer.</p><p>Although I dont support terrorism as such, if I was a terrorist, I would just strap as much explosive as possible to my body and walk into the security lines at JFK and then blow myself up. It would send the air transport network into chaos as passengers are concerned that their airport may be the next one hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cellphone ban exists for 2 reasons : 1.Although evidence to date has n't backed up the " cellphones are dangerous to aircraft systems " argument , the testing that has been done has not tested all combinations of cellphones and aircraft systems ( and seats where the cellphone user is sitting ) and therefore there may be a situation where a cellphone sends out radiation that does interfere with an aircraft system.and 2.Regardless of the effect on aircraft systems , any cellphone would be seeing so many towers at once ( if it wasnt too high up to see any at all ) that it would cause issues with the mobile network.As for security , show me any modern aircraft with a standard set of equipment present ( even before baggage , cargo and passengers are loaded ) and I can find ways to kill people with that equipment .
Or even to damage the planes systems enough to cause serious problems for the pilots ( especially if I can access the hatchways into the avionics bays , cargo areas etc ) Banning knitting needles , bottled water and nail files has done nothing to make flying safer .
It was done to make the sheeple ( who dont know any better ) feel safer.Although I dont support terrorism as such , if I was a terrorist , I would just strap as much explosive as possible to my body and walk into the security lines at JFK and then blow myself up .
It would send the air transport network into chaos as passengers are concerned that their airport may be the next one hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cellphone ban exists for 2 reasons:1.Although evidence to date hasn't backed up the "cellphones are dangerous to aircraft systems" argument, the testing that has been done has not tested all combinations of cellphones and aircraft systems (and seats where the cellphone user is sitting) and therefore there may be a situation where a cellphone sends out radiation that does interfere with an aircraft system.and 2.Regardless of the effect on aircraft systems, any cellphone would be seeing so many towers at once (if it wasnt too high up to see any at all) that it would cause issues with the mobile network.As for security, show me any modern aircraft with a standard set of equipment present (even before baggage, cargo and passengers are loaded) and I can find ways to kill people with that equipment.
Or even to damage the planes systems enough to cause serious problems for the pilots (especially if I can access the hatchways into the avionics bays, cargo areas etc)Banning knitting needles, bottled water and nail files has done nothing to make flying safer.
It was done to make the sheeple (who dont know any better) feel safer.Although I dont support terrorism as such, if I was a terrorist, I would just strap as much explosive as possible to my body and walk into the security lines at JFK and then blow myself up.
It would send the air transport network into chaos as passengers are concerned that their airport may be the next one hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1265894340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way that we are "safer" than pre-9/11 is because now when someone tries to hijack a plane passengers are going to outnumber the hijackers and subdue them. Before 9/11, you complied with the hijackers, ended up in Cuba somewhere, the hijacker gave up, or shot someone and then the police stormed the plane and you were back where you were supposed to be in a few hours. Now anytime someone does something to try to take over the plane, they will be tackled and taken down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way that we are " safer " than pre-9/11 is because now when someone tries to hijack a plane passengers are going to outnumber the hijackers and subdue them .
Before 9/11 , you complied with the hijackers , ended up in Cuba somewhere , the hijacker gave up , or shot someone and then the police stormed the plane and you were back where you were supposed to be in a few hours .
Now anytime someone does something to try to take over the plane , they will be tackled and taken down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way that we are "safer" than pre-9/11 is because now when someone tries to hijack a plane passengers are going to outnumber the hijackers and subdue them.
Before 9/11, you complied with the hijackers, ended up in Cuba somewhere, the hijacker gave up, or shot someone and then the police stormed the plane and you were back where you were supposed to be in a few hours.
Now anytime someone does something to try to take over the plane, they will be tackled and taken down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109326</id>
	<title>TSA is the Terror Support Administration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just adds proof of how insane the Goons at TSA-HLS and DNI are: in order to justify their continued illegal existance they must fund, plain and support (bankroll) terriorist organizations and promulgate irrational fear at all levels of the US government (their pitiful efforts to brainwash the society are failing).  It is the sworn and affirmed intent of the Director of HLS and Director of National Intelligence to destroy the United States of America and its citizens, their most hated enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just adds proof of how insane the Goons at TSA-HLS and DNI are : in order to justify their continued illegal existance they must fund , plain and support ( bankroll ) terriorist organizations and promulgate irrational fear at all levels of the US government ( their pitiful efforts to brainwash the society are failing ) .
It is the sworn and affirmed intent of the Director of HLS and Director of National Intelligence to destroy the United States of America and its citizens , their most hated enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just adds proof of how insane the Goons at TSA-HLS and DNI are: in order to justify their continued illegal existance they must fund, plain and support (bankroll) terriorist organizations and promulgate irrational fear at all levels of the US government (their pitiful efforts to brainwash the society are failing).
It is the sworn and affirmed intent of the Director of HLS and Director of National Intelligence to destroy the United States of America and its citizens, their most hated enemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111764</id>
	<title>THEY ARE NOT TAKING YOUR BATTERIES AWAY!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are misreading the WRONG government document.</p><blockquote><div><p>    The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) * * *<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aircraft.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (UN3091).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.</p><p>-- <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539726&amp;cid=31047602" title="slashdot.org">bwcbwc</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div> </blockquote><p>As KiahZero noted, the correct document is <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7b3a7" title="regulations.gov">PHMSA-2009-0095</a> [regulations.gov].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are misreading the WRONG government document .
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January .
The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent .
And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries .
Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium .
        Do n't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists .
        " Sec .
171.12 North American shipments .
                                        ( a ) * * *                                         ( 6 ) Lithium cells and batteries .
Lithium cells and batteries must         be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the         provisions of this subchapter .
Lithium metal cells and batteries         ( UN3090 ) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying         aircraft .
                                        ( i ) The provisions of this paragraph ( a ) ( 6 ) do not apply to         packages that contain 5 kg ( 11 pounds ) net weight or less lithium metal         cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment         ( UN3091 ) .
        "         There are similar provisions for international travel , but citing a different regulation.-- bwcbwc [ slashdot.org ] As KiahZero noted , the correct document is PHMSA-2009-0095 [ regulations.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are misreading the WRONG government document.
The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January.
The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent.
And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries.
Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.
        Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.
        "Sec.
171.12 North American shipments.
                                        (a) * * *
                                        (6) Lithium cells and batteries.
Lithium cells and batteries must
        be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the
        provisions of this subchapter.
Lithium metal cells and batteries
        (UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying
        aircraft.
                                        (i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to
        packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal
        cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment
        (UN3091).
        "
        There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.-- bwcbwc [slashdot.org] As KiahZero noted, the correct document is PHMSA-2009-0095 [regulations.gov].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107662</id>
	<title>my order:</title>
	<author>Mishotaki</author>
	<datestamp>1265894100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>28 millions batteries please... and i'd like to make sure that it will be air mail... and that if anything happens, i get reimbursed with an extra for my trouble</htmltext>
<tokenext>28 millions batteries please... and i 'd like to make sure that it will be air mail... and that if anything happens , i get reimbursed with an extra for my trouble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>28 millions batteries please... and i'd like to make sure that it will be air mail... and that if anything happens, i get reimbursed with an extra for my trouble</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111078</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265975040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have said it many times. People smuggel drugs. The places they put them vary lightly, but I am sure that it should not be too difficult to prepare some solid explosive, the fuse and some matches and place thenm inside your body where they are easily accesible. Then go to the toilet take it out and blow the thing up there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have said it many times .
People smuggel drugs .
The places they put them vary lightly , but I am sure that it should not be too difficult to prepare some solid explosive , the fuse and some matches and place thenm inside your body where they are easily accesible .
Then go to the toilet take it out and blow the thing up there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have said it many times.
People smuggel drugs.
The places they put them vary lightly, but I am sure that it should not be too difficult to prepare some solid explosive, the fuse and some matches and place thenm inside your body where they are easily accesible.
Then go to the toilet take it out and blow the thing up there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107406</id>
	<title>That's the point</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265892780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.</p></div><p>Isn't that the whole point of these rules?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.Is n't that the whole point of these rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.Isn't that the whole point of these rules?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</id>
	<title>Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the people running our security repeatedly prove to be absolutely clueless?</p><p>Let's look at a list, shall we?</p><p>They want to ban batteries when there isn't any scientific proof of an interesting risk.</p><p>They ban knitting needles when nobody has ever hijacked a plane with knitting needles.</p><p>Liquids are banned outside 3 oz amounts held in a quart bag despite their own scientists failing to demonstrate how such fluids can be used as an explosive, and the only terrorist to date that has used fluids only succeeded in burning himself.</p><p>They banned pilots from carrying tweezers after 9/11.  Why, because pilots might honestly hijack themselves should they find tweezers in their pocket?</p><p>Pocket knives continue to be banned, and are thrown away costing consumers millions in lost property without any evidence that having pocket knives adds to any risk to anyone.</p><p>Canes *are* allowed on planes.  Clearly a better choice of a weapon than a pen knife.</p><p>Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).</p><p>A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs.  It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people?  And if they are not trained, are we safer?</p><p>I could go on.   That's just off the top of my head.</p><p>Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk?  When are we going to admit you can't eliminate all risk?  When are we going to deal with risks we can address, and accept risks we can't do anything reasonable about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the people running our security repeatedly prove to be absolutely clueless ? Let 's look at a list , shall we ? They want to ban batteries when there is n't any scientific proof of an interesting risk.They ban knitting needles when nobody has ever hijacked a plane with knitting needles.Liquids are banned outside 3 oz amounts held in a quart bag despite their own scientists failing to demonstrate how such fluids can be used as an explosive , and the only terrorist to date that has used fluids only succeeded in burning himself.They banned pilots from carrying tweezers after 9/11 .
Why , because pilots might honestly hijack themselves should they find tweezers in their pocket ? Pocket knives continue to be banned , and are thrown away costing consumers millions in lost property without any evidence that having pocket knives adds to any risk to anyone.Canes * are * allowed on planes .
Clearly a better choice of a weapon than a pen knife.Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11 , but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment ( despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof ) .A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs .
It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously , I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation , but do n't they actually train security people ?
And if they are not trained , are we safer ? I could go on .
That 's just off the top of my head.Seriously , when are we going to make rules based on actual risk ?
When are we going to admit you ca n't eliminate all risk ?
When are we going to deal with risks we can address , and accept risks we ca n't do anything reasonable about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the people running our security repeatedly prove to be absolutely clueless?Let's look at a list, shall we?They want to ban batteries when there isn't any scientific proof of an interesting risk.They ban knitting needles when nobody has ever hijacked a plane with knitting needles.Liquids are banned outside 3 oz amounts held in a quart bag despite their own scientists failing to demonstrate how such fluids can be used as an explosive, and the only terrorist to date that has used fluids only succeeded in burning himself.They banned pilots from carrying tweezers after 9/11.
Why, because pilots might honestly hijack themselves should they find tweezers in their pocket?Pocket knives continue to be banned, and are thrown away costing consumers millions in lost property without any evidence that having pocket knives adds to any risk to anyone.Canes *are* allowed on planes.
Clearly a better choice of a weapon than a pen knife.Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs.
It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people?
And if they are not trained, are we safer?I could go on.
That's just off the top of my head.Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk?
When are we going to admit you can't eliminate all risk?
When are we going to deal with risks we can address, and accept risks we can't do anything reasonable about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</id>
	<title>Sanity</title>
	<author>BSAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1265891100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers .
It is all about perceived risk , not actual risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers.
It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108696</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least I'd hope they'd use statistics that make sense.  What are we to read of "1 in 28 million" when there will be <a href="http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2007-24-10-01.htm" title="iata.org" rel="nofollow">2.75 <i>billion</i> airline passengers</a> [iata.org] next year? Does that mean no regulation of laptop batteries will cause 100 airline deaths? Obviously not.  The article's 'being on a flight with someone injured by a battery' quotation?  First, what on earth does that mean on its own, but does that mean that only 1 person injured by a laptop will fly just once, since most planes hold 100-ish passengers?<br>
&nbsp; <br>The sheer incomprehensibility of this statistic convinces me this is either meant as irrational shock journalism or ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain reassurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least I 'd hope they 'd use statistics that make sense .
What are we to read of " 1 in 28 million " when there will be 2.75 billion airline passengers [ iata.org ] next year ?
Does that mean no regulation of laptop batteries will cause 100 airline deaths ?
Obviously not .
The article 's 'being on a flight with someone injured by a battery ' quotation ?
First , what on earth does that mean on its own , but does that mean that only 1 person injured by a laptop will fly just once , since most planes hold 100-ish passengers ?
  The sheer incomprehensibility of this statistic convinces me this is either meant as irrational shock journalism or ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain reassurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least I'd hope they'd use statistics that make sense.
What are we to read of "1 in 28 million" when there will be 2.75 billion airline passengers [iata.org] next year?
Does that mean no regulation of laptop batteries will cause 100 airline deaths?
Obviously not.
The article's 'being on a flight with someone injured by a battery' quotation?
First, what on earth does that mean on its own, but does that mean that only 1 person injured by a laptop will fly just once, since most planes hold 100-ish passengers?
  The sheer incomprehensibility of this statistic convinces me this is either meant as irrational shock journalism or ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain reassurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107708</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1265894340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... <b>solids</b>.  Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials.  They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore <b>must</b> be prohibited from aircraft cabins.  All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage.  There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids , they need to look at a far greater risk... solids. Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner , except that one particular liquid bomb , was made from solid materials .
They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins .
All solid materials that can not fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage .
There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... solids.  Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials.
They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins.
All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage.
There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.</p></div><p>That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.</p></div><p>Furthermore, we've banned terrorists from getting onto planes, <i>but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane???</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting killed in a car accident , by contrast , is 4,300 times more likely.That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists ; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.Furthermore , we 've banned terrorists from getting onto planes , but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.Furthermore, we've banned terrorists from getting onto planes, but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108186</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Ohrion</author>
	<datestamp>1265897220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>XKCD called it first here.
<a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>XKCD called it first here .
http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XKCD called it first here.
http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110056</id>
	<title>Re:Not the Problem</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1265916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you manage to breathe so much and not choke?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you manage to breathe so much and not choke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you manage to breathe so much and not choke?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111168</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265976360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were that applied consistently I think that would be great. I sincerely doubt it is. In a ford you are worth $200,000 but in a plane? 10million.<br> <br>To a coal power plant your life is often worth under 100k. If the government enforced them to calculate lives at 7million you would see nuclear power take over REAL fast. Minimum, you would see coal companies spend a lot more on filters and safety features.<br> <br>What about policy decisions? How often do you see: "There is a 5\% chance that 30 people will die. The cost to avoid this is 12million. We therefore shouldn't bother because the death figure is only worth 10.5million."<br> <br>This, while perfectly logical is completely vacant from decision making. You could spend that 12million dollars saving lives more efficiently for sure.<br> <br>If it were followed through with on a governmental level then it would call into question the military assuming foreign lives are worth anything near american lives.<br> <br>Even civil engineers the people that really drove for these figures don't really get to use them. They often are stuck with meeting a certain requirement level regardless of whether the cost is justifiable. That said, I'd be happy if all fields actually took the numbers into account as much as civvies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were that applied consistently I think that would be great .
I sincerely doubt it is .
In a ford you are worth $ 200,000 but in a plane ?
10million. To a coal power plant your life is often worth under 100k .
If the government enforced them to calculate lives at 7million you would see nuclear power take over REAL fast .
Minimum , you would see coal companies spend a lot more on filters and safety features .
What about policy decisions ?
How often do you see : " There is a 5 \ % chance that 30 people will die .
The cost to avoid this is 12million .
We therefore should n't bother because the death figure is only worth 10.5million .
" This , while perfectly logical is completely vacant from decision making .
You could spend that 12million dollars saving lives more efficiently for sure .
If it were followed through with on a governmental level then it would call into question the military assuming foreign lives are worth anything near american lives .
Even civil engineers the people that really drove for these figures do n't really get to use them .
They often are stuck with meeting a certain requirement level regardless of whether the cost is justifiable .
That said , I 'd be happy if all fields actually took the numbers into account as much as civvies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were that applied consistently I think that would be great.
I sincerely doubt it is.
In a ford you are worth $200,000 but in a plane?
10million. To a coal power plant your life is often worth under 100k.
If the government enforced them to calculate lives at 7million you would see nuclear power take over REAL fast.
Minimum, you would see coal companies spend a lot more on filters and safety features.
What about policy decisions?
How often do you see: "There is a 5\% chance that 30 people will die.
The cost to avoid this is 12million.
We therefore shouldn't bother because the death figure is only worth 10.5million.
" This, while perfectly logical is completely vacant from decision making.
You could spend that 12million dollars saving lives more efficiently for sure.
If it were followed through with on a governmental level then it would call into question the military assuming foreign lives are worth anything near american lives.
Even civil engineers the people that really drove for these figures don't really get to use them.
They often are stuck with meeting a certain requirement level regardless of whether the cost is justifiable.
That said, I'd be happy if all fields actually took the numbers into account as much as civvies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111568</id>
	<title>One of these things is not like the other</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1 time 3000 people died, compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year. Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning. So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists</i> </p><p>The geek is addicted to false and misleading analogies.</p><p>The population of the WTC complex at the noon hour on a weekday was around 100 thousand.</p><p>The 42 thousand accidental traffic deaths a year he talks about will never occur in a single incident in downtown Manhattan.</p><p> The terrorist can make such things happen.</p><p>The single traffic death has limited and definable consequences.</p><p>The twin towers were 13 million square feet of office space, a transport hub, a shopping center and a tourist attraction - and most significantly a vital part of Manhattan's financial district.</p><p>Highly skilled people, in very specialized trades,  not easily replaced, and all in their prime earning years. This not a hit any city could have rebounded from easily, not even a city as rich and powerful as New York.</p><p>The attack on the WTC was, of course, co-ordinated with simultaneous attacks on Washington.</p><p>If the geek does not like world he is living in now, he might usefully consider what would have followed from the mass murder of the American Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 time 3000 people died , compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year .
Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning .
So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists The geek is addicted to false and misleading analogies.The population of the WTC complex at the noon hour on a weekday was around 100 thousand.The 42 thousand accidental traffic deaths a year he talks about will never occur in a single incident in downtown Manhattan .
The terrorist can make such things happen.The single traffic death has limited and definable consequences.The twin towers were 13 million square feet of office space , a transport hub , a shopping center and a tourist attraction - and most significantly a vital part of Manhattan 's financial district.Highly skilled people , in very specialized trades , not easily replaced , and all in their prime earning years .
This not a hit any city could have rebounded from easily , not even a city as rich and powerful as New York.The attack on the WTC was , of course , co-ordinated with simultaneous attacks on Washington.If the geek does not like world he is living in now , he might usefully consider what would have followed from the mass murder of the American Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 time 3000 people died, compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year.
Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning.
So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists The geek is addicted to false and misleading analogies.The population of the WTC complex at the noon hour on a weekday was around 100 thousand.The 42 thousand accidental traffic deaths a year he talks about will never occur in a single incident in downtown Manhattan.
The terrorist can make such things happen.The single traffic death has limited and definable consequences.The twin towers were 13 million square feet of office space, a transport hub, a shopping center and a tourist attraction - and most significantly a vital part of Manhattan's financial district.Highly skilled people, in very specialized trades,  not easily replaced, and all in their prime earning years.
This not a hit any city could have rebounded from easily, not even a city as rich and powerful as New York.The attack on the WTC was, of course, co-ordinated with simultaneous attacks on Washington.If the geek does not like world he is living in now, he might usefully consider what would have followed from the mass murder of the American Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107234</id>
	<title>theater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we're using stats, the likelihood of a terrorist flying your plane into a building is even lower, especially given that the cockpit is locked now. [...]</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're using stats , the likelihood of a terrorist flying your plane into a building is even lower , especially given that the cockpit is locked now .
[ ... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're using stats, the likelihood of a terrorist flying your plane into a building is even lower, especially given that the cockpit is locked now.
[...]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109506</id>
	<title>I'm not flying anymore.</title>
	<author>VertigoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265909820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not flying anymore and it's not because I'm scared.  It's because I'm tired of the hassle.</p><p>For the record I love to fly, I've flown since I was a small child.  I used to fly with a pocket knife then.  Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that.  Back before 9/11 those were allowed.  Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool, yet they are banned.  I'm waiting for the day that I'm not allowed to take my cane.  I think on that day I'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.</p><p>The whole reason I'm not going to fly is I feel it's the only way for us to regain control of the situation.  Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.</p><p>I say let's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits.  Then and only then will I start flying again.  Until that time, I'll drive, take the train or even the bus.  Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that hasn't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not flying anymore and it 's not because I 'm scared .
It 's because I 'm tired of the hassle.For the record I love to fly , I 've flown since I was a small child .
I used to fly with a pocket knife then .
Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that .
Back before 9/11 those were allowed .
Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool , yet they are banned .
I 'm waiting for the day that I 'm not allowed to take my cane .
I think on that day I 'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.The whole reason I 'm not going to fly is I feel it 's the only way for us to regain control of the situation .
Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.I say let 's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits .
Then and only then will I start flying again .
Until that time , I 'll drive , take the train or even the bus .
Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that has n't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not flying anymore and it's not because I'm scared.
It's because I'm tired of the hassle.For the record I love to fly, I've flown since I was a small child.
I used to fly with a pocket knife then.
Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that.
Back before 9/11 those were allowed.
Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool, yet they are banned.
I'm waiting for the day that I'm not allowed to take my cane.
I think on that day I'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.The whole reason I'm not going to fly is I feel it's the only way for us to regain control of the situation.
Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.I say let's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits.
Then and only then will I start flying again.
Until that time, I'll drive, take the train or even the bus.
Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that hasn't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048</id>
	<title>The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109642</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1265911200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe lives are invaluable, but we don't have limitless amounts of money to spend protecting them, this means someone must decide where best to spend the available resources.</p><p>I think more guardrails on the roads would give the best bang for the buck.  One on each side plus one down the middle.</p><p>Or you could spend many billions preemptively invading a country while chasing a phantom enemy, losing ~4000+ American lives and ~100000+-? foreign civilian lives, all in the name of saving invaluable lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe lives are invaluable , but we do n't have limitless amounts of money to spend protecting them , this means someone must decide where best to spend the available resources.I think more guardrails on the roads would give the best bang for the buck .
One on each side plus one down the middle.Or you could spend many billions preemptively invading a country while chasing a phantom enemy , losing ~ 4000 + American lives and ~ 100000 + - ?
foreign civilian lives , all in the name of saving invaluable lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe lives are invaluable, but we don't have limitless amounts of money to spend protecting them, this means someone must decide where best to spend the available resources.I think more guardrails on the roads would give the best bang for the buck.
One on each side plus one down the middle.Or you could spend many billions preemptively invading a country while chasing a phantom enemy, losing ~4000+ American lives and ~100000+-?
foreign civilian lives, all in the name of saving invaluable lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109874</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1265913900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's the safety culture that has arisen from the media crisis culture. there is a type of thinking out there that believes EVERY accident can be avoided. typically safety officers think like this, and use it as a means to control everyone around them by constantly playing the safety card.<p>
in the real world, you can't escape risk. after all the world could spontaniousy explo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the safety culture that has arisen from the media crisis culture .
there is a type of thinking out there that believes EVERY accident can be avoided .
typically safety officers think like this , and use it as a means to control everyone around them by constantly playing the safety card .
in the real world , you ca n't escape risk .
after all the world could spontaniousy explo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the safety culture that has arisen from the media crisis culture.
there is a type of thinking out there that believes EVERY accident can be avoided.
typically safety officers think like this, and use it as a means to control everyone around them by constantly playing the safety card.
in the real world, you can't escape risk.
after all the world could spontaniousy explo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107426</id>
	<title>don't just sit there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, you can comment on the proposed legislation here:</p><p><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2" title="regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2</a> [regulations.gov]</p><p>Of course, do your research first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , you can comment on the proposed legislation here : http : //www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html # documentDetail ? R = 0900006480a75fb2 [ regulations.gov ] Of course , do your research first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, you can comment on the proposed legislation here:http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2 [regulations.gov]Of course, do your research first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108386</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265898660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).</i></p><p>Fool!  There's lots of proof that the cell phone's wi-fi power fluctuations and, uh, midichlorians will disrupt the plane's navigation system and flux capacitor and make the plane crash into the nearest school for bunnies.  There will be screaming bunnies on fire if you use your phone on the plane!</p><p>Seriously, I'm all for ending the stupidity in airline security, but let's just let this one slide, okay?  Do you hate the guy who talks loudly on his cell phone while at a coffee shop or on the bus?  Now imagine being crammed next to that guy for five hours.  Seriously, flying sucks enough as it is without every jackass with a phone flapping away and going "Can you hear me now?  No? I'll talk louder then!"</p><p>If there's an emergency, you can still bust out your phone and use it just like you can today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11 , but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment ( despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof ) .Fool !
There 's lots of proof that the cell phone 's wi-fi power fluctuations and , uh , midichlorians will disrupt the plane 's navigation system and flux capacitor and make the plane crash into the nearest school for bunnies .
There will be screaming bunnies on fire if you use your phone on the plane ! Seriously , I 'm all for ending the stupidity in airline security , but let 's just let this one slide , okay ?
Do you hate the guy who talks loudly on his cell phone while at a coffee shop or on the bus ?
Now imagine being crammed next to that guy for five hours .
Seriously , flying sucks enough as it is without every jackass with a phone flapping away and going " Can you hear me now ?
No ? I 'll talk louder then !
" If there 's an emergency , you can still bust out your phone and use it just like you can today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).Fool!
There's lots of proof that the cell phone's wi-fi power fluctuations and, uh, midichlorians will disrupt the plane's navigation system and flux capacitor and make the plane crash into the nearest school for bunnies.
There will be screaming bunnies on fire if you use your phone on the plane!Seriously, I'm all for ending the stupidity in airline security, but let's just let this one slide, okay?
Do you hate the guy who talks loudly on his cell phone while at a coffee shop or on the bus?
Now imagine being crammed next to that guy for five hours.
Seriously, flying sucks enough as it is without every jackass with a phone flapping away and going "Can you hear me now?
No? I'll talk louder then!
"If there's an emergency, you can still bust out your phone and use it just like you can today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108198</id>
	<title>Obama wants to peep your cell phone.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warrantless tracking of your cell phone.  LOL, just LOL!  So tell me - how's that Constitutional law "professor" working out for you?  I guess they don't study the 4th amendment at Harvard Law - just how to subvert it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warrantless tracking of your cell phone .
LOL , just LOL !
So tell me - how 's that Constitutional law " professor " working out for you ?
I guess they do n't study the 4th amendment at Harvard Law - just how to subvert it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warrantless tracking of your cell phone.
LOL, just LOL!
So tell me - how's that Constitutional law "professor" working out for you?
I guess they don't study the 4th amendment at Harvard Law - just how to subvert it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109566</id>
	<title>The future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should just have Fifth Element type sleeping whatever. Press a button at the beginning of the flight and you're out till the end. Bring almost anything on board, no worry about some crying baby next to you, no fear of flying or etc. Fall asleep, wake up, you done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should just have Fifth Element type sleeping whatever .
Press a button at the beginning of the flight and you 're out till the end .
Bring almost anything on board , no worry about some crying baby next to you , no fear of flying or etc .
Fall asleep , wake up , you done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should just have Fifth Element type sleeping whatever.
Press a button at the beginning of the flight and you're out till the end.
Bring almost anything on board, no worry about some crying baby next to you, no fear of flying or etc.
Fall asleep, wake up, you done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108878</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265902920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course this has a huge downside. I'm not afraid of an actual attack while on a plane but rather the collective panic that would break out upon someone being accused of terrorism. What is stopping two or three people from instigating passengers to gang up on an innocent person/people with a well-orchestrated act? What if this happened many times over the course of a few days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this has a huge downside .
I 'm not afraid of an actual attack while on a plane but rather the collective panic that would break out upon someone being accused of terrorism .
What is stopping two or three people from instigating passengers to gang up on an innocent person/people with a well-orchestrated act ?
What if this happened many times over the course of a few days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this has a huge downside.
I'm not afraid of an actual attack while on a plane but rather the collective panic that would break out upon someone being accused of terrorism.
What is stopping two or three people from instigating passengers to gang up on an innocent person/people with a well-orchestrated act?
What if this happened many times over the course of a few days?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109200</id>
	<title>The FAA is generally pretty good about this...</title>
	<author>zQuo</author>
	<datestamp>1265905920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FAA employs economists to assess the economic and risk impact of possible regulations, such as exploding batteries.

<br> <br>
One that came up a few years back was whether to require infants to have their own airline seats.  Sounds like an obvious safety issue.  Require every child to have a seat, then they are safer, no?  The FAA economist did an assessment that the increased cost of travel to mothers and families would lead many to travel instead by car.  This would lead to many more infant car deaths on the highways than would ever be saved by a child in it's own seat really making a difference in a plane crash.

<br> <br>
I was quite impressed that the FAA was considering the bigger picture.  This is just another example of how *some* gov't agencies show some sanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAA employs economists to assess the economic and risk impact of possible regulations , such as exploding batteries .
One that came up a few years back was whether to require infants to have their own airline seats .
Sounds like an obvious safety issue .
Require every child to have a seat , then they are safer , no ?
The FAA economist did an assessment that the increased cost of travel to mothers and families would lead many to travel instead by car .
This would lead to many more infant car deaths on the highways than would ever be saved by a child in it 's own seat really making a difference in a plane crash .
I was quite impressed that the FAA was considering the bigger picture .
This is just another example of how * some * gov't agencies show some sanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAA employs economists to assess the economic and risk impact of possible regulations, such as exploding batteries.
One that came up a few years back was whether to require infants to have their own airline seats.
Sounds like an obvious safety issue.
Require every child to have a seat, then they are safer, no?
The FAA economist did an assessment that the increased cost of travel to mothers and families would lead many to travel instead by car.
This would lead to many more infant car deaths on the highways than would ever be saved by a child in it's own seat really making a difference in a plane crash.
I was quite impressed that the FAA was considering the bigger picture.
This is just another example of how *some* gov't agencies show some sanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109350</id>
	<title>Re:Perspective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Furthermore, we've banned terrorists from getting onto planes, but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane???</p><p>Fortunately the only cars you can drive on planes are Shriner sized.   Small risk of Shriners selling their cars to terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Furthermore , we 've banned terrorists from getting onto planes , but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane ? ?
? Fortunately the only cars you can drive on planes are Shriner sized .
Small risk of Shriners selling their cars to terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Furthermore, we've banned terrorists from getting onto planes, but have we banned people from driving cars on the plane??
?Fortunately the only cars you can drive on planes are Shriner sized.
Small risk of Shriners selling their cars to terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111804</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally blame the sensationalist media.</p></div><p>I blame the people who only read/pay/buy/watch sensationalist media.
<br> <br>
There is no market for the other kind of news media at least. Headlines like,"$X planes landed safely today." just don't sell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally blame the sensationalist media.I blame the people who only read/pay/buy/watch sensationalist media .
There is no market for the other kind of news media at least .
Headlines like , " $ X planes landed safely today .
" just do n't sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally blame the sensationalist media.I blame the people who only read/pay/buy/watch sensationalist media.
There is no market for the other kind of news media at least.
Headlines like,"$X planes landed safely today.
" just don't sell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107948</id>
	<title>As common as getting injured in a car accident is</title>
	<author>brokeninside</author>
	<datestamp>1265895600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's far less likely that someone will get injured in a car accident while on a commercial airliner than than it is that someone will get injured by an exploding battery on a commercial airliner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's far less likely that someone will get injured in a car accident while on a commercial airliner than than it is that someone will get injured by an exploding battery on a commercial airliner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's far less likely that someone will get injured in a car accident while on a commercial airliner than than it is that someone will get injured by an exploding battery on a commercial airliner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111134</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the EPA values each American life at around $7 million</p></div></blockquote><p>So if something kills a, let's say, a French man, it's that all right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the EPA values each American life at around $ 7 millionSo if something kills a , let 's say , a French man , it 's that all right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the EPA values each American life at around $7 millionSo if something kills a, let's say, a French man, it's that all right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265893320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish people logically applied statistics to all of these decisions. It always horrifies me that people state that human lives are invaluable and then go making decisions to that end. Which does of course put a value on a life but it does so at pretty much random. Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each. But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each (aka, it will likely never save a single life), certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.<br> <br>Stating that human lives are invaluable is a demonstrably false statement that nearly everyone has heard and the vast majority accept (though they won't practice it). Were it true, it'd be near impossible to leave the house due to the risk of death clearly not being worth whatever job you might have, cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits. With hospitals blanketing the countryside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish people logically applied statistics to all of these decisions .
It always horrifies me that people state that human lives are invaluable and then go making decisions to that end .
Which does of course put a value on a life but it does so at pretty much random .
Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each .
But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each ( aka , it will likely never save a single life ) , certain types of chemical bans is an example of that .
Stating that human lives are invaluable is a demonstrably false statement that nearly everyone has heard and the vast majority accept ( though they wo n't practice it ) .
Were it true , it 'd be near impossible to leave the house due to the risk of death clearly not being worth whatever job you might have , cars would be horrifying death traps , yaddayadda , we 'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits .
With hospitals blanketing the countryside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish people logically applied statistics to all of these decisions.
It always horrifies me that people state that human lives are invaluable and then go making decisions to that end.
Which does of course put a value on a life but it does so at pretty much random.
Some safety features or systems could save lives at a few hundred bucks each.
But often we get safety laws put in place where it saves lives at the cost of trillions of dollars each (aka, it will likely never save a single life), certain types of chemical bans is an example of that.
Stating that human lives are invaluable is a demonstrably false statement that nearly everyone has heard and the vast majority accept (though they won't practice it).
Were it true, it'd be near impossible to leave the house due to the risk of death clearly not being worth whatever job you might have, cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits.
With hospitals blanketing the countryside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108272</id>
	<title>Re:Not the Problem</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1265897760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still not a real risk.</p><p>1 time 3000 people died, compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year. Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning. So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still not a real risk.1 time 3000 people died , compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year .
Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning .
So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still not a real risk.1 time 3000 people died, compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year.
Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning.
So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108436</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265899140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players?</p></div><p>Hasn't happened yet and we've known about ground effect vehicles for at least half a century. My answer is thus, "no".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players ? Has n't happened yet and we 've known about ground effect vehicles for at least half a century .
My answer is thus , " no " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players?Hasn't happened yet and we've known about ground effect vehicles for at least half a century.
My answer is thus, "no".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108464</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265899320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fat has an energy density of at least 38 MJ / kg (I'm not sure if that's how much energy your body can extract from it, or if that's the actual energy content).</p><p>The battery in my Macbook Pro is 60 Wh, which is 216 KJ.  So if the person sitting in the seat next to you has even 1 kg of fat on him (not even considering the rest of what he's made of), and the person sitting next to me on the plane always has WAY more than 1 kg of fat, that's 176 times as much energy.</p><p>Your seat mate has about as much chance of exploding and bringing down the plane too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fat has an energy density of at least 38 MJ / kg ( I 'm not sure if that 's how much energy your body can extract from it , or if that 's the actual energy content ) .The battery in my Macbook Pro is 60 Wh , which is 216 KJ .
So if the person sitting in the seat next to you has even 1 kg of fat on him ( not even considering the rest of what he 's made of ) , and the person sitting next to me on the plane always has WAY more than 1 kg of fat , that 's 176 times as much energy.Your seat mate has about as much chance of exploding and bringing down the plane too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fat has an energy density of at least 38 MJ / kg (I'm not sure if that's how much energy your body can extract from it, or if that's the actual energy content).The battery in my Macbook Pro is 60 Wh, which is 216 KJ.
So if the person sitting in the seat next to you has even 1 kg of fat on him (not even considering the rest of what he's made of), and the person sitting next to me on the plane always has WAY more than 1 kg of fat, that's 176 times as much energy.Your seat mate has about as much chance of exploding and bringing down the plane too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111098</id>
	<title>Re:Not the Problem</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265975460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, yes. That is exactly what they are talking about.</p><p>And even then some individual might suffer mildly. e.g. his balls will hurt a lot. No explosion in the sky with a huge fireball. Even when done intentionally there is no real danger. Stop watching the A-Team and/or McGyuver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , yes .
That is exactly what they are talking about.And even then some individual might suffer mildly .
e.g. his balls will hurt a lot .
No explosion in the sky with a huge fireball .
Even when done intentionally there is no real danger .
Stop watching the A-Team and/or McGyuver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, yes.
That is exactly what they are talking about.And even then some individual might suffer mildly.
e.g. his balls will hurt a lot.
No explosion in the sky with a huge fireball.
Even when done intentionally there is no real danger.
Stop watching the A-Team and/or McGyuver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107196</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>RajivSLK</author>
	<datestamp>1265891880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108948</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only one who's absolutely clueless here is you. The proposed rule doesn't ban batteries.</p><blockquote><div><p>17. In Sec. 175.10, paragraph (a)(17) is revised to read as<br>follows:</p><p>Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air<br>operators.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) * * *<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter,<br>portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating<br>machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,<br>camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including<br>lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these<br>devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.<br>Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to<br>meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and<br>Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as<br>to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or<br>by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed<br>terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or<br>protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition,<br>each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than<br>2 grams per battery; or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,<br>except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than<br>100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only one who 's absolutely clueless here is you .
The proposed rule does n't ban batteries.17 .
In Sec .
175.10 , paragraph ( a ) ( 17 ) is revised to read asfollows : Sec .
175.10 Exceptions for passengers , crewmembers , and airoperators .
                ( a ) * * *                 ( 17 ) Except as provided in Sec .
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices ( for example , watches , calculatingmachines , cameras , cellular phones , laptop and notebook computers,camcorders , etc .
) containing dry cells or dry batteries ( includinglithium cells or batteries ) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices , when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria , and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits ( by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals , e.g. , by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch ) and carried in carry-on baggage only .
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following :                 ( i ) For a lithium metal battery , a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery ; or                 ( ii ) For a lithium-ion battery , a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only one who's absolutely clueless here is you.
The proposed rule doesn't ban batteries.17.
In Sec.
175.10, paragraph (a)(17) is revised to read asfollows:Sec.
175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and airoperators.
                (a) * * *
                (17) Except as provided in Sec.
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculatingmachines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,camcorders, etc.
) containing dry cells or dry batteries (includinglithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only.
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
                (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery; or
                (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108820</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1265902500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will help the FBI fight child pornography.  Won't you think of the children?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will help the FBI fight child pornography .
Wo n't you think of the children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will help the FBI fight child pornography.
Won't you think of the children?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>theshowmecanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Risk management in NOT just about the odds of some event or action happening like almost everyone seems to think. It also has to take into account the impact of the event or action. Low risk low impact, don't worry so much. High risk low impact, still don't have to worry that much unless the frequency is an issue. Low risk high impact (like death), take actions to prevent it. High risk high impact, just don't even bother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Risk management in NOT just about the odds of some event or action happening like almost everyone seems to think .
It also has to take into account the impact of the event or action .
Low risk low impact , do n't worry so much .
High risk low impact , still do n't have to worry that much unless the frequency is an issue .
Low risk high impact ( like death ) , take actions to prevent it .
High risk high impact , just do n't even bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Risk management in NOT just about the odds of some event or action happening like almost everyone seems to think.
It also has to take into account the impact of the event or action.
Low risk low impact, don't worry so much.
High risk low impact, still don't have to worry that much unless the frequency is an issue.
Low risk high impact (like death), take actions to prevent it.
High risk high impact, just don't even bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111660</id>
	<title>"Nearly shot?"</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs. It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people? And if they are not trained, are we safer?</i> </p><p>You might want to take a closer look at the shirt she was wearing. <a href="http://boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html" title="boingboing.net">MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with "fake bomb'</a> [boingboing.net] Without examining the board how can you be certain of its function?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs .
It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously , I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation , but do n't they actually train security people ?
And if they are not trained , are we safer ?
You might want to take a closer look at the shirt she was wearing .
MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with " fake bomb ' [ boingboing.net ] Without examining the board how can you be certain of its function ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs.
It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people?
And if they are not trained, are we safer?
You might want to take a closer look at the shirt she was wearing.
MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with "fake bomb' [boingboing.net] Without examining the board how can you be certain of its function?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111890</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>KillaBeave</author>
	<datestamp>1265984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This fact doesn't get enough mention in airline security talks.  9/11 really changed the fight or flight (pun not intended) responses of anyone aboard a hijacked airplane.  It suddenly became "comply and don nothing? probably die." or the alternative "beat that guy/guys to a pulp with my laptop?  maybe live."
<br> <br>
I believe that my reaction to such circumstances has changed for good, and can't imagine that it didn't for anyone else in the western world.  I'll choose maybe live over probably die any day of the week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This fact does n't get enough mention in airline security talks .
9/11 really changed the fight or flight ( pun not intended ) responses of anyone aboard a hijacked airplane .
It suddenly became " comply and don nothing ?
probably die .
" or the alternative " beat that guy/guys to a pulp with my laptop ?
maybe live .
" I believe that my reaction to such circumstances has changed for good , and ca n't imagine that it did n't for anyone else in the western world .
I 'll choose maybe live over probably die any day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This fact doesn't get enough mention in airline security talks.
9/11 really changed the fight or flight (pun not intended) responses of anyone aboard a hijacked airplane.
It suddenly became "comply and don nothing?
probably die.
" or the alternative "beat that guy/guys to a pulp with my laptop?
maybe live.
"
 
I believe that my reaction to such circumstances has changed for good, and can't imagine that it didn't for anyone else in the western world.
I'll choose maybe live over probably die any day of the week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108360</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265898360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk?</i></p><p>Not anytime soon. Most rules are based on the revenue they can generate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , when are we going to make rules based on actual risk ? Not anytime soon .
Most rules are based on the revenue they can generate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk?Not anytime soon.
Most rules are based on the revenue they can generate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108740</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>jowifi</author>
	<datestamp>1265901780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, these already exist.  They're called maglev trains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , these already exist .
They 're called maglev trains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, these already exist.
They're called maglev trains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265892720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know you were being sarcastic, but still, the thing the argument misses is the hidden cost of flying planes slowly (or not at all). For one, more people would use cars, which are less safe than planes. There would also be the reduction in general wealth and efficiency, which indirectly costs lives. Now, if a large group of people really did want such measures taken, the market would give them flights that went more slowly, took even more hours to board due to extra security checks, etc. These people surely exist, but they either aren't willing to pay the costs their approach would involve, or it's an untapped market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you were being sarcastic , but still , the thing the argument misses is the hidden cost of flying planes slowly ( or not at all ) .
For one , more people would use cars , which are less safe than planes .
There would also be the reduction in general wealth and efficiency , which indirectly costs lives .
Now , if a large group of people really did want such measures taken , the market would give them flights that went more slowly , took even more hours to board due to extra security checks , etc .
These people surely exist , but they either are n't willing to pay the costs their approach would involve , or it 's an untapped market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you were being sarcastic, but still, the thing the argument misses is the hidden cost of flying planes slowly (or not at all).
For one, more people would use cars, which are less safe than planes.
There would also be the reduction in general wealth and efficiency, which indirectly costs lives.
Now, if a large group of people really did want such measures taken, the market would give them flights that went more slowly, took even more hours to board due to extra security checks, etc.
These people surely exist, but they either aren't willing to pay the costs their approach would involve, or it's an untapped market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is already known by anyone in the field. IIRC the EPA values each American life at around $7 million. They use this figure to make decisions on whether safety features are worth the cost. I believe the value is based around the gross output of the average working person over the span of their life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is already known by anyone in the field .
IIRC the EPA values each American life at around $ 7 million .
They use this figure to make decisions on whether safety features are worth the cost .
I believe the value is based around the gross output of the average working person over the span of their life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is already known by anyone in the field.
IIRC the EPA values each American life at around $7 million.
They use this figure to make decisions on whether safety features are worth the cost.
I believe the value is based around the gross output of the average working person over the span of their life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108396</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1265898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.</p></div><p>The university I go to is basically banning bake sales and 'cooked goods' sales on campus for fear of the event that someone might get sick from it.... nevermind the fact that they've been going on nearly daily for decades without issues... nevermind the fact that there haven't been any complaints about it and the buyers are fully aware of the food and its production/delivery.</p><p>Move along and keep your head down, it is now illegal to look up because you might accidentally look right at the sun and suffer eye damage...</p><p>(sarcastic example of the bleak future of this kind of thinking)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers .
It is all about perceived risk , not actual risk.The university I go to is basically banning bake sales and 'cooked goods ' sales on campus for fear of the event that someone might get sick from it.... nevermind the fact that they 've been going on nearly daily for decades without issues... nevermind the fact that there have n't been any complaints about it and the buyers are fully aware of the food and its production/delivery.Move along and keep your head down , it is now illegal to look up because you might accidentally look right at the sun and suffer eye damage... ( sarcastic example of the bleak future of this kind of thinking )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers.
It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.The university I go to is basically banning bake sales and 'cooked goods' sales on campus for fear of the event that someone might get sick from it.... nevermind the fact that they've been going on nearly daily for decades without issues... nevermind the fact that there haven't been any complaints about it and the buyers are fully aware of the food and its production/delivery.Move along and keep your head down, it is now illegal to look up because you might accidentally look right at the sun and suffer eye damage...(sarcastic example of the bleak future of this kind of thinking)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111132</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we clarify...</p><p>Let's quantify.  Likelihood = Remote.  Consequence = Minor<br>Proposal?  Do nothing.</p><p>Yes, I can hear the safety experts now "ALARP" (as low as reasonably practicable).  What f***king bullshit.<br>That's what you get from an industry that is half baked and ultra conservative.</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we clarify...Let 's quantify .
Likelihood = Remote .
Consequence = MinorProposal ?
Do nothing.Yes , I can hear the safety experts now " ALARP " ( as low as reasonably practicable ) .
What f * * * king bullshit.That 's what you get from an industry that is half baked and ultra conservative.AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we clarify...Let's quantify.
Likelihood = Remote.
Consequence = MinorProposal?
Do nothing.Yes, I can hear the safety experts now "ALARP" (as low as reasonably practicable).
What f***king bullshit.That's what you get from an industry that is half baked and ultra conservative.AC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107946</id>
	<title>Re:Who are these people who feel safer when...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265895600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine\_Airlines\_Flight\_434" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine\_Airlines\_Flight\_434</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
showed what liquids could do.<br>
The "terrorist to date" that has used fluids succeeded in killing and getting himself off the flight.<br>
The problem is a laptop was recovered from the plot and might have pointed to 911 ect.<br>
So they want to ban liquids but promoted people dont really want to much chatter about the past<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine \ _Airlines \ _Flight \ _434 [ wikipedia.org ] showed what liquids could do .
The " terrorist to date " that has used fluids succeeded in killing and getting himself off the flight .
The problem is a laptop was recovered from the plot and might have pointed to 911 ect .
So they want to ban liquids but promoted people dont really want to much chatter about the past ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine\_Airlines\_Flight\_434 [wikipedia.org] 
showed what liquids could do.
The "terrorist to date" that has used fluids succeeded in killing and getting himself off the flight.
The problem is a laptop was recovered from the plot and might have pointed to 911 ect.
So they want to ban liquids but promoted people dont really want to much chatter about the past ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112390</id>
	<title>Re:don't just sit there</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265987340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you can't comment on the proposed rule-making there, because that's the wrong rule-making. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "do[ing] your research first."</p><p>If you read the damn thing, you'd see where it said "ACTION: Final rule; corrections." You'd see that they already accepted comments, and that this final rule responds to those comments. The rule you've linked to is already effective, and mostly has been effective for over a year now.</p><p>The proposed rule that you can comment on is <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7b3a7" title="regulations.gov">PHMSA 2009-0095</a> [regulations.gov], not PHMSA 2007-0065.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you ca n't comment on the proposed rule-making there , because that 's the wrong rule-making .
Perhaps you should take your own advice of " do [ ing ] your research first .
" If you read the damn thing , you 'd see where it said " ACTION : Final rule ; corrections .
" You 'd see that they already accepted comments , and that this final rule responds to those comments .
The rule you 've linked to is already effective , and mostly has been effective for over a year now.The proposed rule that you can comment on is PHMSA 2009-0095 [ regulations.gov ] , not PHMSA 2007-0065 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you can't comment on the proposed rule-making there, because that's the wrong rule-making.
Perhaps you should take your own advice of "do[ing] your research first.
"If you read the damn thing, you'd see where it said "ACTION: Final rule; corrections.
" You'd see that they already accepted comments, and that this final rule responds to those comments.
The rule you've linked to is already effective, and mostly has been effective for over a year now.The proposed rule that you can comment on is PHMSA 2009-0095 [regulations.gov], not PHMSA 2007-0065.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109352</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...</p></div><p>If anything, rigging crates of lithium batteries to blow up on commercial transports (plane/train/truck) would be an even bigger disaster than downing a passenger plane.</p><p>At least with passenger planes, we can screen everyone and everything going on the plane.<br>There's no way we have the capability to screen every piece of cargo traveling by train/plane/truck.<br>Imagine a world where lithium batteries get tracked (like shipments of decongestants) so that terrorists can't<br>use them to make bombs, because every week a box of lithium cells goes thermal on a cargo train/plane/truck .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...If anything , rigging crates of lithium batteries to blow up on commercial transports ( plane/train/truck ) would be an even bigger disaster than downing a passenger plane.At least with passenger planes , we can screen everyone and everything going on the plane.There 's no way we have the capability to screen every piece of cargo traveling by train/plane/truck.Imagine a world where lithium batteries get tracked ( like shipments of decongestants ) so that terrorists can'tuse them to make bombs , because every week a box of lithium cells goes thermal on a cargo train/plane/truck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...If anything, rigging crates of lithium batteries to blow up on commercial transports (plane/train/truck) would be an even bigger disaster than downing a passenger plane.At least with passenger planes, we can screen everyone and everything going on the plane.There's no way we have the capability to screen every piece of cargo traveling by train/plane/truck.Imagine a world where lithium batteries get tracked (like shipments of decongestants) so that terrorists can'tuse them to make bombs, because every week a box of lithium cells goes thermal on a cargo train/plane/truck .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108434</id>
	<title>Value of Human Life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economists have already solved this problem. Instead of trying to place their own values on human life, they determined how much people actually value themselves. Jobs that come with higher risk only attract workers at high enough pay. Comparing how much higher that pay is versus similar but lower risk jobs allows for a realistic value. In the end it turns out that most people value themselves at around $5 to $10 million dollars. The EPA came up with around $7 million dollars so this seems pretty well accepted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economists have already solved this problem .
Instead of trying to place their own values on human life , they determined how much people actually value themselves .
Jobs that come with higher risk only attract workers at high enough pay .
Comparing how much higher that pay is versus similar but lower risk jobs allows for a realistic value .
In the end it turns out that most people value themselves at around $ 5 to $ 10 million dollars .
The EPA came up with around $ 7 million dollars so this seems pretty well accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economists have already solved this problem.
Instead of trying to place their own values on human life, they determined how much people actually value themselves.
Jobs that come with higher risk only attract workers at high enough pay.
Comparing how much higher that pay is versus similar but lower risk jobs allows for a realistic value.
In the end it turns out that most people value themselves at around $5 to $10 million dollars.
The EPA came up with around $7 million dollars so this seems pretty well accepted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108410</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265898900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.</p></div><p>I agree.  All it would take is a paper clip and a laptop with a fully-charged Li-ion battery.  Or they could custom-build a battery with smaller cells but the same voltage, then use the space they save for bad stuff.  I doubt it would be caught on X-ray.</p><p>Pretty soon, all laptops will have to be in checked baggage (and subject to the junk fee, of course)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.I agree .
All it would take is a paper clip and a laptop with a fully-charged Li-ion battery .
Or they could custom-build a battery with smaller cells but the same voltage , then use the space they save for bad stuff .
I doubt it would be caught on X-ray.Pretty soon , all laptops will have to be in checked baggage ( and subject to the junk fee , of course )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.I agree.
All it would take is a paper clip and a laptop with a fully-charged Li-ion battery.
Or they could custom-build a battery with smaller cells but the same voltage, then use the space they save for bad stuff.
I doubt it would be caught on X-ray.Pretty soon, all laptops will have to be in checked baggage (and subject to the junk fee, of course)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107848</id>
	<title>Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265895000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground\_effect\_vehicle" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground\_effect\_vehicle</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
You can have better fuel efficiency and be safe near the ground.<br>
The problem is you need a really good design or really good in flight computer assistance to make up for a lack of  really good design skills.<br>
Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground \ _effect \ _vehicle [ wikipedia.org ] You can have better fuel efficiency and be safe near the ground .
The problem is you need a really good design or really good in flight computer assistance to make up for a lack of really good design skills .
Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground\_effect\_vehicle [wikipedia.org] 
You can have better fuel efficiency and be safe near the ground.
The problem is you need a really good design or really good in flight computer assistance to make up for a lack of  really good design skills.
Could a start up with new money gain traction to build a quality large scale craft thats cheaper to run than established politically connected players?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110422</id>
	<title>Metaphorically speaking</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1265965380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely."</p><p>Then by all means, let us not mix our metaphors.</p><p>According to the latest WHO report on preventable deaths world wide <a href="http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/avoidable-deaths-worldwide-scope-of.html" title="nextbigfuture.com">http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/avoidable-deaths-worldwide-scope-of.html</a> [nextbigfuture.com] 1.3 million people die annually from car accidents.</p><p>Dividing by 4300 gives us 302 (rounded to whole number) people annually suffering an injury from battery boomage while on an airplane. The question of 'acceptable collateral damage' aside, that's 25 chances per month for an inflight laptop flameout. Not studied was how likely one of these is to cause an accident, with or without fatalities.</p><p>So much for governmental oversight agency produced 'reassuring' statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Getting killed in a car accident , by contrast , is 4,300 times more likely .
" Then by all means , let us not mix our metaphors.According to the latest WHO report on preventable deaths world wide http : //nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/avoidable-deaths-worldwide-scope-of.html [ nextbigfuture.com ] 1.3 million people die annually from car accidents.Dividing by 4300 gives us 302 ( rounded to whole number ) people annually suffering an injury from battery boomage while on an airplane .
The question of 'acceptable collateral damage ' aside , that 's 25 chances per month for an inflight laptop flameout .
Not studied was how likely one of these is to cause an accident , with or without fatalities.So much for governmental oversight agency produced 'reassuring ' statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.
"Then by all means, let us not mix our metaphors.According to the latest WHO report on preventable deaths world wide http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/avoidable-deaths-worldwide-scope-of.html [nextbigfuture.com] 1.3 million people die annually from car accidents.Dividing by 4300 gives us 302 (rounded to whole number) people annually suffering an injury from battery boomage while on an airplane.
The question of 'acceptable collateral damage' aside, that's 25 chances per month for an inflight laptop flameout.
Not studied was how likely one of these is to cause an accident, with or without fatalities.So much for governmental oversight agency produced 'reassuring' statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111018</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, not all human lives are equally valuable. I they were, it would be a good idea to send all health professionals in the US to Africa, were they would save more lives than in the US with the same amount of effort.</p><p>Secondly, and more importantly, not all deaths are equal. Would you pay pirates to not to kill hostages? Would the amount they ask really matter in the decision? Imagine some convict in prison or on death row who we know will rape and murder 10 children a year. But he is also a gifted obstetrician who will save the live of 20 children if allowed to practice. Do we allow him to practice? Imagine you live in Africa and have 4 children. There is a famine, and there is only 40\% chance your children will survive it. Kill one now, and the odds go up to 90\%. Will you do it? And what if the odds are 30\%, 20\%, 10\%, 1\%?</p><p>We have to assign utility to a lot more than just the value of a human life to solve these moral problems with expected utility. People, and companies, generally don't want a human being, and certainly not themselves, to be the proximate cause of someone's death, they don't want to award crime, negligence, and recklessness, etc. Of course some decisions appear irrational, but deciding on the value of human life is not the solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , not all human lives are equally valuable .
I they were , it would be a good idea to send all health professionals in the US to Africa , were they would save more lives than in the US with the same amount of effort.Secondly , and more importantly , not all deaths are equal .
Would you pay pirates to not to kill hostages ?
Would the amount they ask really matter in the decision ?
Imagine some convict in prison or on death row who we know will rape and murder 10 children a year .
But he is also a gifted obstetrician who will save the live of 20 children if allowed to practice .
Do we allow him to practice ?
Imagine you live in Africa and have 4 children .
There is a famine , and there is only 40 \ % chance your children will survive it .
Kill one now , and the odds go up to 90 \ % .
Will you do it ?
And what if the odds are 30 \ % , 20 \ % , 10 \ % , 1 \ % ? We have to assign utility to a lot more than just the value of a human life to solve these moral problems with expected utility .
People , and companies , generally do n't want a human being , and certainly not themselves , to be the proximate cause of someone 's death , they do n't want to award crime , negligence , and recklessness , etc .
Of course some decisions appear irrational , but deciding on the value of human life is not the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, not all human lives are equally valuable.
I they were, it would be a good idea to send all health professionals in the US to Africa, were they would save more lives than in the US with the same amount of effort.Secondly, and more importantly, not all deaths are equal.
Would you pay pirates to not to kill hostages?
Would the amount they ask really matter in the decision?
Imagine some convict in prison or on death row who we know will rape and murder 10 children a year.
But he is also a gifted obstetrician who will save the live of 20 children if allowed to practice.
Do we allow him to practice?
Imagine you live in Africa and have 4 children.
There is a famine, and there is only 40\% chance your children will survive it.
Kill one now, and the odds go up to 90\%.
Will you do it?
And what if the odds are 30\%, 20\%, 10\%, 1\%?We have to assign utility to a lot more than just the value of a human life to solve these moral problems with expected utility.
People, and companies, generally don't want a human being, and certainly not themselves, to be the proximate cause of someone's death, they don't want to award crime, negligence, and recklessness, etc.
Of course some decisions appear irrational, but deciding on the value of human life is not the solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110048</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1265916300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally blame all the morans of the world.</p><p>Yes slashdot, that was intentional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally blame all the morans of the world.Yes slashdot , that was intentional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally blame all the morans of the world.Yes slashdot, that was intentional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108564</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.</p></div><p>cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits. With hospitals blanketing the countryside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers .
It is all about perceived risk , not actual risk.cars would be horrifying death traps , yaddayadda , we 'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits .
With hospitals blanketing the countryside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers.
It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits.
With hospitals blanketing the countryside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107300</id>
	<title>You know what else is rare?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting blown up by terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting blown up by terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting blown up by terrorists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31117942</id>
	<title>Re:Sanity</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not going to happen. Unless the batteries set something else (that shouldn't be there) off, the plane won't be downed. There could be a number of personal injuries and the plane will have to land early due to panicked passengers, but it's not going to lose air-worthiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not going to happen .
Unless the batteries set something else ( that should n't be there ) off , the plane wo n't be downed .
There could be a number of personal injuries and the plane will have to land early due to panicked passengers , but it 's not going to lose air-worthiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not going to happen.
Unless the batteries set something else (that shouldn't be there) off, the plane won't be downed.
There could be a number of personal injuries and the plane will have to land early due to panicked passengers, but it's not going to lose air-worthiness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107240</id>
	<title>and presumably ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.</p></div><p>... somebody, somewhere, wants exactly that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.... somebody , somewhere , wants exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.... somebody, somewhere, wants exactly that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31114620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31117942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2252214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31114620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31117942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31110268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109556
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31111734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31108700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2252214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31112042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31109350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2252214.31107916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
