<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_201257</id>
	<title>Verizon To Allow Skype Calling On Its Network</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266315120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Verizon press release begins: "At the 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Verizon Wireless and Skype today announced a strategic relationship that will <a href="http://phandroid.com/2010/02/16/verizon-announces-game-changing-skype-deal/">bring Skype to Verizon Wireless smartphones</a> in March." What used to be one of the most protective carriers anywhere has been opening up in major ways since the introduction of the Motorola Droid. Phandroid summarizes: "Starting next month, Verizon Smartphone users with data plans will enjoy free and unlimited Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone on the planet. And you&rsquo;ll enjoy amazingly cheap Skype International calls as well. All this from Verizon Wireless&rsquo; 3G network." Some are wondering <a href="http://twitter.com/csoghoian/status/9192315120">how the DoJ and law enforcement will react</a> to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Verizon press release begins : " At the 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona , Verizon Wireless and Skype today announced a strategic relationship that will bring Skype to Verizon Wireless smartphones in March .
" What used to be one of the most protective carriers anywhere has been opening up in major ways since the introduction of the Motorola Droid .
Phandroid summarizes : " Starting next month , Verizon Smartphone users with data plans will enjoy free and unlimited Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone on the planet .
And you    ll enjoy amazingly cheap Skype International calls as well .
All this from Verizon Wireless    3G network .
" Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Verizon press release begins: "At the 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Verizon Wireless and Skype today announced a strategic relationship that will bring Skype to Verizon Wireless smartphones in March.
" What used to be one of the most protective carriers anywhere has been opening up in major ways since the introduction of the Motorola Droid.
Phandroid summarizes: "Starting next month, Verizon Smartphone users with data plans will enjoy free and unlimited Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone on the planet.
And you’ll enjoy amazingly cheap Skype International calls as well.
All this from Verizon Wireless’ 3G network.
" Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161552</id>
	<title>How about SIP or IAX calling??</title>
	<author>chipperdog</author>
	<datestamp>1266320940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't tried it on my Android yet, but do they make attempts to block those calls?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't tried it on my Android yet , but do they make attempts to block those calls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't tried it on my Android yet, but do they make attempts to block those calls?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1266319620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>fully encrypted, hahaha.  yeah right.</p></div><p>My thoughts exactly.  Nothing gets THAT large without some eyes and ears from our good "friends" in three-letter land...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>fully encrypted , hahaha .
yeah right.My thoughts exactly .
Nothing gets THAT large without some eyes and ears from our good " friends " in three-letter land.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fully encrypted, hahaha.
yeah right.My thoughts exactly.
Nothing gets THAT large without some eyes and ears from our good "friends" in three-letter land...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161742</id>
	<title>My guess</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266321900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that you will need to use a Verizon-supplied (or authorised) client.<br>The client will either not use encryption or will have some sort of back door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that you will need to use a Verizon-supplied ( or authorised ) client.The client will either not use encryption or will have some sort of back door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that you will need to use a Verizon-supplied (or authorised) client.The client will either not use encryption or will have some sort of back door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31164662</id>
	<title>It is always great to share</title>
	<author>forexfee</author>
	<datestamp>1266340620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is always great to share the innovative ideas with others on our demand.That is the main way for the people to know about the good types of techniques to equip it. It will really gives the crucial moments for others to know about it. It is a great passion for the people to select the great categories of the stories on the requirements of using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is always great to share the innovative ideas with others on our demand.That is the main way for the people to know about the good types of techniques to equip it .
It will really gives the crucial moments for others to know about it .
It is a great passion for the people to select the great categories of the stories on the requirements of using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is always great to share the innovative ideas with others on our demand.That is the main way for the people to know about the good types of techniques to equip it.
It will really gives the crucial moments for others to know about it.
It is a great passion for the people to select the great categories of the stories on the requirements of using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161896</id>
	<title>Skype collaboration</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1266322860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specially since Skype are rather open about the fact they are ready to collaborate with governments if legally asked to.</p><p>Once again : the only *true* privacy/security is complete end-to-end (deniable) encryption where the encryption is under the control of the sender and the decryption under that of the receiver, and everything in between only transits in encrypted form.</p><p>Only opensource phones with publicly available and auditable source-code and that use ZRTP do qualify (like currently Twinkle. Probably Ekiga too at some point in future).<br>Being closed source and thus not auditable, Skype doesn't qualify as *under control of sender/receiver*, unless the data it self is already encrypted at the time it is fed into Skype.</p><p>(NOTE:<br><a href="http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/" title="cypherpunks.ca">Off the Record</a> [cypherpunks.ca] plugin + <a href="http://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/" title="google.com">Skype4pidgin</a> [google.com] plugin does exactly that on Pidgin/Adium with text messages : if both ends of a conversation have OtR running, the message will be encrypted before it is transmitted to Skype API - even if there's a backdoor inside Skype the only thing it sees would be already encrypted text. OtR works with other networks, given the proper plugin. But currently can't work with sound/video, because Skype only accept raw media that have to be compressed)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specially since Skype are rather open about the fact they are ready to collaborate with governments if legally asked to.Once again : the only * true * privacy/security is complete end-to-end ( deniable ) encryption where the encryption is under the control of the sender and the decryption under that of the receiver , and everything in between only transits in encrypted form.Only opensource phones with publicly available and auditable source-code and that use ZRTP do qualify ( like currently Twinkle .
Probably Ekiga too at some point in future ) .Being closed source and thus not auditable , Skype does n't qualify as * under control of sender/receiver * , unless the data it self is already encrypted at the time it is fed into Skype .
( NOTE : Off the Record [ cypherpunks.ca ] plugin + Skype4pidgin [ google.com ] plugin does exactly that on Pidgin/Adium with text messages : if both ends of a conversation have OtR running , the message will be encrypted before it is transmitted to Skype API - even if there 's a backdoor inside Skype the only thing it sees would be already encrypted text .
OtR works with other networks , given the proper plugin .
But currently ca n't work with sound/video , because Skype only accept raw media that have to be compressed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specially since Skype are rather open about the fact they are ready to collaborate with governments if legally asked to.Once again : the only *true* privacy/security is complete end-to-end (deniable) encryption where the encryption is under the control of the sender and the decryption under that of the receiver, and everything in between only transits in encrypted form.Only opensource phones with publicly available and auditable source-code and that use ZRTP do qualify (like currently Twinkle.
Probably Ekiga too at some point in future).Being closed source and thus not auditable, Skype doesn't qualify as *under control of sender/receiver*, unless the data it self is already encrypted at the time it is fed into Skype.
(NOTE:Off the Record [cypherpunks.ca] plugin + Skype4pidgin [google.com] plugin does exactly that on Pidgin/Adium with text messages : if both ends of a conversation have OtR running, the message will be encrypted before it is transmitted to Skype API - even if there's a backdoor inside Skype the only thing it sees would be already encrypted text.
OtR works with other networks, given the proper plugin.
But currently can't work with sound/video, because Skype only accept raw media that have to be compressed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161152</id>
	<title>One guys twitter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is translated to "some are wondering"? Seriously, who is Christopher Soghoian and when did he become a bellweather?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is translated to " some are wondering " ?
Seriously , who is Christopher Soghoian and when did he become a bellweather ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is translated to "some are wondering"?
Seriously, who is Christopher Soghoian and when did he become a bellweather?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162030</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>hldn</author>
	<datestamp>1266323520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you won't catch me paying that much.  i pay $2.50/month for my cellphone and i'm happy with what that buys me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you wo n't catch me paying that much .
i pay $ 2.50/month for my cellphone and i 'm happy with what that buys me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you won't catch me paying that much.
i pay $2.50/month for my cellphone and i'm happy with what that buys me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161320</id>
	<title>Linux is *still* for fags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>shit eating fags. dick smoking fags. rump roasting fags. abba lovin fags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>shit eating fags .
dick smoking fags .
rump roasting fags .
abba lovin fags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shit eating fags.
dick smoking fags.
rump roasting fags.
abba lovin fags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162156</id>
	<title>Re:How about SIP or IAX calling??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno about other providers but I use my home SIP account on my T-Mobile phone all the time (an unlocked Nokia E63).</p><p>Only thing I hate about SIP is that it is unencrypted so using it over Wifi is not a good idea without a VPN or something (which tends to add significant latency).  If I had designed SIP the very first consideration would have been security and encryption.  It is a phone protocol after all, how they could ignore one of the most sensitive areas of privacy concerns (phone networks) is beyond stupid.  I know there are some add-on protocols for secure SIP but there are like 0 SIP providers that use them because the protocols are an afterthought in the design and so hard to implement and use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno about other providers but I use my home SIP account on my T-Mobile phone all the time ( an unlocked Nokia E63 ) .Only thing I hate about SIP is that it is unencrypted so using it over Wifi is not a good idea without a VPN or something ( which tends to add significant latency ) .
If I had designed SIP the very first consideration would have been security and encryption .
It is a phone protocol after all , how they could ignore one of the most sensitive areas of privacy concerns ( phone networks ) is beyond stupid .
I know there are some add-on protocols for secure SIP but there are like 0 SIP providers that use them because the protocols are an afterthought in the design and so hard to implement and use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno about other providers but I use my home SIP account on my T-Mobile phone all the time (an unlocked Nokia E63).Only thing I hate about SIP is that it is unencrypted so using it over Wifi is not a good idea without a VPN or something (which tends to add significant latency).
If I had designed SIP the very first consideration would have been security and encryption.
It is a phone protocol after all, how they could ignore one of the most sensitive areas of privacy concerns (phone networks) is beyond stupid.
I know there are some add-on protocols for secure SIP but there are like 0 SIP providers that use them because the protocols are an afterthought in the design and so hard to implement and use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163118</id>
	<title>Re:They'll probably be granted access.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266329520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of that would matter if an open encryption standard was established and implemented and if end users start encrypting their communications with a system with no back doors. The carriers (Skype included) can comply with CALEA and turn over the communications and the law enforcement agencies can receive a bunch of gibberish. But as long as we are using closed source, closed protocols, we might as well assume our voice communications are nice and safe like with GSM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of that would matter if an open encryption standard was established and implemented and if end users start encrypting their communications with a system with no back doors .
The carriers ( Skype included ) can comply with CALEA and turn over the communications and the law enforcement agencies can receive a bunch of gibberish .
But as long as we are using closed source , closed protocols , we might as well assume our voice communications are nice and safe like with GSM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of that would matter if an open encryption standard was established and implemented and if end users start encrypting their communications with a system with no back doors.
The carriers (Skype included) can comply with CALEA and turn over the communications and the law enforcement agencies can receive a bunch of gibberish.
But as long as we are using closed source, closed protocols, we might as well assume our voice communications are nice and safe like with GSM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162430</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast</title>
	<author>kidgenius</author>
	<datestamp>1266325500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fring is available on verizon phones too and it also supports skypeout.  What's your point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fring is available on verizon phones too and it also supports skypeout .
What 's your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fring is available on verizon phones too and it also supports skypeout.
What's your point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31166076</id>
	<title>this reminds me of a movie ...</title>
	<author>moro\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1265055720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are Borg^H^H^H^H Skype. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.</p><p>Might just be that Verizon figured out that resistance to voip calls is futile, and they'd better be on the smiling bunch than the grumpy one. Thumbs up for the brave move, let's see how the mobile competition responds to this. AT&amp;T, are you there ? If you are - tough luck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are Borg ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H Skype .
You will be assimilated .
Resistance is futile.Might just be that Verizon figured out that resistance to voip calls is futile , and they 'd better be on the smiling bunch than the grumpy one .
Thumbs up for the brave move , let 's see how the mobile competition responds to this .
AT&amp;T , are you there ?
If you are - tough luck ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are Borg^H^H^H^H Skype.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.Might just be that Verizon figured out that resistance to voip calls is futile, and they'd better be on the smiling bunch than the grumpy one.
Thumbs up for the brave move, let's see how the mobile competition responds to this.
AT&amp;T, are you there ?
If you are - tough luck ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162052</id>
	<title>I guess I'm in a time warp</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1266323580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I'm from the future.  I've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months, now...  Call my cell phone, or call my Skype number and the HTC rings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'm from the future .
I 've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months , now... Call my cell phone , or call my Skype number and the HTC rings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'm from the future.
I've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months, now...  Call my cell phone, or call my Skype number and the HTC rings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178408</id>
	<title>video conference is nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In general, I like the features of your application, but I really don't like seeing ugly people on my TV. Can you please make sure to have call display also send a visual mug shot of the caller to my TV before I answer? I'd really like to screen out the uglies. Thanks. And once again... love the app you made.</p><p>Sincerely, Your beta tester.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , I like the features of your application , but I really do n't like seeing ugly people on my TV .
Can you please make sure to have call display also send a visual mug shot of the caller to my TV before I answer ?
I 'd really like to screen out the uglies .
Thanks. And once again... love the app you made.Sincerely , Your beta tester .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, I like the features of your application, but I really don't like seeing ugly people on my TV.
Can you please make sure to have call display also send a visual mug shot of the caller to my TV before I answer?
I'd really like to screen out the uglies.
Thanks. And once again... love the app you made.Sincerely, Your beta tester.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161164</id>
	<title>Now we'll see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. If Verizon's network can really handle the load and if those "Verizon is so much better than At&amp;T" ads are really true<br>2. What way the will find to milk the money they will loose from voice plans, perhaps we will see the appearance of a Skype add-on for mobile plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If Verizon 's network can really handle the load and if those " Verizon is so much better than At&amp;T " ads are really true2 .
What way the will find to milk the money they will loose from voice plans , perhaps we will see the appearance of a Skype add-on for mobile plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If Verizon's network can really handle the load and if those "Verizon is so much better than At&amp;T" ads are really true2.
What way the will find to milk the money they will loose from voice plans, perhaps we will see the appearance of a Skype add-on for mobile plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161222</id>
	<title>I know how they will react</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266319380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.</p></div><p>Place a large order for <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/20/239224" title="slashdot.org">Post-it notes</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.Place a large order for Post-it notes [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.Place a large order for Post-it notes [slashdot.org]?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163722</id>
	<title>Re:Skype collaboration</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1266334380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even so, the PRNG on those devices is not random enough (due to processor constraints) and the packages too small, too uniform (it's voice compressed with a very narrow filter) and too many for the encryption not being able to withstand a decent sized computing cluster. Sure the full stream will probably not be decrypted but enough for it to be understandable.</p><p>Encryption is difficult to do. Encryption of full-sentence text (e-mail or chat) would be much safer than voice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even so , the PRNG on those devices is not random enough ( due to processor constraints ) and the packages too small , too uniform ( it 's voice compressed with a very narrow filter ) and too many for the encryption not being able to withstand a decent sized computing cluster .
Sure the full stream will probably not be decrypted but enough for it to be understandable.Encryption is difficult to do .
Encryption of full-sentence text ( e-mail or chat ) would be much safer than voice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even so, the PRNG on those devices is not random enough (due to processor constraints) and the packages too small, too uniform (it's voice compressed with a very narrow filter) and too many for the encryption not being able to withstand a decent sized computing cluster.
Sure the full stream will probably not be decrypted but enough for it to be understandable.Encryption is difficult to do.
Encryption of full-sentence text (e-mail or chat) would be much safer than voice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162140</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1266324060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.</i></p><p>When was there $30 phone service?  I remember entry level 300 minute AT&amp;T clocking in at $40 plus gas food and tolls.</p><p>One big difference between then and now, was that then the phone companies expected you to go over your minutes, and reaped financial profits from those $100 bill months.  Now, entry-level phone service includes enough minutes for anyone but teenagers and prats in BMW's, but baseline at $50 or so (family plans excluded).  Add required data plans onto that, and the loss of over-minute gouging is made up for by data and text gouging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where many people used to have service in the $ 30- $ 40 range , more and more people seem to be paying closer to $ 100 ( pre-tax ) for cell service.When was there $ 30 phone service ?
I remember entry level 300 minute AT&amp;T clocking in at $ 40 plus gas food and tolls.One big difference between then and now , was that then the phone companies expected you to go over your minutes , and reaped financial profits from those $ 100 bill months .
Now , entry-level phone service includes enough minutes for anyone but teenagers and prats in BMW 's , but baseline at $ 50 or so ( family plans excluded ) .
Add required data plans onto that , and the loss of over-minute gouging is made up for by data and text gouging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.When was there $30 phone service?
I remember entry level 300 minute AT&amp;T clocking in at $40 plus gas food and tolls.One big difference between then and now, was that then the phone companies expected you to go over your minutes, and reaped financial profits from those $100 bill months.
Now, entry-level phone service includes enough minutes for anyone but teenagers and prats in BMW's, but baseline at $50 or so (family plans excluded).
Add required data plans onto that, and the loss of over-minute gouging is made up for by data and text gouging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162650</id>
	<title>dancing in the streets, more likely</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1266326760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.</p></div></blockquote><p>With glee, probably. Since Skype won't talk about how its protocols and software work, it's entirely possible that they have methods of monitoring all calls made on the network. (In fact, one Austrian official <a href="http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Speculation-over-back-door-in-Skype-736607.html" title="h-online.com">admitted</a> [h-online.com] that they have no problem intercepting Skype communications.) Even if the full encryption spec is published for cryptographic review and is found to be sturdy, the clients are closed-source, meaning they could simply wait for a specific kind of packet and switch the call into an unencrypted or poorly-encrypted mode for easy wiretapping.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.With glee , probably .
Since Skype wo n't talk about how its protocols and software work , it 's entirely possible that they have methods of monitoring all calls made on the network .
( In fact , one Austrian official admitted [ h-online.com ] that they have no problem intercepting Skype communications .
) Even if the full encryption spec is published for cryptographic review and is found to be sturdy , the clients are closed-source , meaning they could simply wait for a specific kind of packet and switch the call into an unencrypted or poorly-encrypted mode for easy wiretapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.With glee, probably.
Since Skype won't talk about how its protocols and software work, it's entirely possible that they have methods of monitoring all calls made on the network.
(In fact, one Austrian official admitted [h-online.com] that they have no problem intercepting Skype communications.
) Even if the full encryption spec is published for cryptographic review and is found to be sturdy, the clients are closed-source, meaning they could simply wait for a specific kind of packet and switch the call into an unencrypted or poorly-encrypted mode for easy wiretapping.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31164748</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1266341220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That very simple description sounds like it would make a judge think seriously...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then again , they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice , nor Data.. . That very simple description sounds like it would make a judge think seriously.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data...
That very simple description sounds like it would make a judge think seriously...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178338</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they still have the math going against them. the universe would go heat death before they could break the crypto.  and I sincerely doubt the nsa has cooked up something like a quantum computer in a vaccuum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they still have the math going against them .
the universe would go heat death before they could break the crypto .
and I sincerely doubt the nsa has cooked up something like a quantum computer in a vaccuum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they still have the math going against them.
the universe would go heat death before they could break the crypto.
and I sincerely doubt the nsa has cooked up something like a quantum computer in a vaccuum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161258</id>
	<title>fully encrypted ?</title>
	<author>phil42</author>
	<datestamp>1266319560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>encryption only works if the bad guys don't have the keys</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>encryption only works if the bad guys do n't have the keys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>encryption only works if the bad guys don't have the keys</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165370</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks, I was thinking of moving over to t-mobile for a particular phone but I wasn't sure as their coverage maps are much more limited compared to the competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , I was thinking of moving over to t-mobile for a particular phone but I was n't sure as their coverage maps are much more limited compared to the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, I was thinking of moving over to t-mobile for a particular phone but I wasn't sure as their coverage maps are much more limited compared to the competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31171858</id>
	<title>Re:If Verizon is now Skype-friendly...</title>
	<author>BobPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;(whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately)</p><p>What's stopping the cable companies from running fiber to the home? I live in a town of not quite 100k and they already ran fiber to all the neighborhood distribution points. We don't have FiOS here, but in places where they do, the cable companies should STFU and run their own fiber to the homes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ( whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately ) What 's stopping the cable companies from running fiber to the home ?
I live in a town of not quite 100k and they already ran fiber to all the neighborhood distribution points .
We do n't have FiOS here , but in places where they do , the cable companies should STFU and run their own fiber to the homes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;(whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately)What's stopping the cable companies from running fiber to the home?
I live in a town of not quite 100k and they already ran fiber to all the neighborhood distribution points.
We don't have FiOS here, but in places where they do, the cable companies should STFU and run their own fiber to the homes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31174060</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first signed on with Sprint, I was paying $29.99 for my minutes.<br>200 anytime, with nights and weekends starting at 7pm.</p><p>I had to pay out the ass for texts and data, though -- $15 a month for data, $15 a month for unlimited texts until I could see what I was using per month for messages (about 850 of them a month - I went down to the 1000 texts per month plan at that point to save $5).</p><p>I only had one month where I almost went over my minutes on that plan -- 199 minutes used. Most months, I'd use 30, tops.</p><p>Sprint still offers that basic 200 minute plan for those who have needs like that.<br>It'd work fine for someone like my (late) grandparents, who made maybe four phonecalls per month, about 10 minutes each, and took about as many calls, usually later in the evening.</p><p>I ended up upgrading to a more expensive plan so that I could use my discount (21\% off), rendering the costs about equal ($55 a month before taxes versus $55.30 a month after discount, before taxes), but getting significantly more for the cash spent (unlimited data, unlimited texts, 450 anytime minutes per month, free calls to ANY mobile in the US, nights starting at 7 with free weekends).</p><p>I've looked at leaving Sprint a few times, but no one offers me a deal similar to what I already have at an attractive price in the US.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(<br>T-Mobile comes close if I bring my own phone, but I'd need to purchase a GSM phone to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first signed on with Sprint , I was paying $ 29.99 for my minutes.200 anytime , with nights and weekends starting at 7pm.I had to pay out the ass for texts and data , though -- $ 15 a month for data , $ 15 a month for unlimited texts until I could see what I was using per month for messages ( about 850 of them a month - I went down to the 1000 texts per month plan at that point to save $ 5 ) .I only had one month where I almost went over my minutes on that plan -- 199 minutes used .
Most months , I 'd use 30 , tops.Sprint still offers that basic 200 minute plan for those who have needs like that.It 'd work fine for someone like my ( late ) grandparents , who made maybe four phonecalls per month , about 10 minutes each , and took about as many calls , usually later in the evening.I ended up upgrading to a more expensive plan so that I could use my discount ( 21 \ % off ) , rendering the costs about equal ( $ 55 a month before taxes versus $ 55.30 a month after discount , before taxes ) , but getting significantly more for the cash spent ( unlimited data , unlimited texts , 450 anytime minutes per month , free calls to ANY mobile in the US , nights starting at 7 with free weekends ) .I 've looked at leaving Sprint a few times , but no one offers me a deal similar to what I already have at an attractive price in the US .
: ( T-Mobile comes close if I bring my own phone , but I 'd need to purchase a GSM phone to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first signed on with Sprint, I was paying $29.99 for my minutes.200 anytime, with nights and weekends starting at 7pm.I had to pay out the ass for texts and data, though -- $15 a month for data, $15 a month for unlimited texts until I could see what I was using per month for messages (about 850 of them a month - I went down to the 1000 texts per month plan at that point to save $5).I only had one month where I almost went over my minutes on that plan -- 199 minutes used.
Most months, I'd use 30, tops.Sprint still offers that basic 200 minute plan for those who have needs like that.It'd work fine for someone like my (late) grandparents, who made maybe four phonecalls per month, about 10 minutes each, and took about as many calls, usually later in the evening.I ended up upgrading to a more expensive plan so that I could use my discount (21\% off), rendering the costs about equal ($55 a month before taxes versus $55.30 a month after discount, before taxes), but getting significantly more for the cash spent (unlimited data, unlimited texts, 450 anytime minutes per month, free calls to ANY mobile in the US, nights starting at 7 with free weekends).I've looked at leaving Sprint a few times, but no one offers me a deal similar to what I already have at an attractive price in the US.
:(T-Mobile comes close if I bring my own phone, but I'd need to purchase a GSM phone to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165610</id>
	<title>iPad plan</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1266347100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan. Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.</i></p><p>iPad plan is $15/month for 256mb (not a lot but enough for most when you consider you'll mostly use WiFi), $30/month for "unlimited" (AKA cell companies idea of unlimited, probably around 5GB).</p><p>That's without any contract.  That seems like a good starting point for a home Skype pad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan .
Unfortunately , any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $ 40/month for voice before they will connect you.iPad plan is $ 15/month for 256mb ( not a lot but enough for most when you consider you 'll mostly use WiFi ) , $ 30/month for " unlimited " ( AKA cell companies idea of unlimited , probably around 5GB ) .That 's without any contract .
That seems like a good starting point for a home Skype pad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan.
Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.iPad plan is $15/month for 256mb (not a lot but enough for most when you consider you'll mostly use WiFi), $30/month for "unlimited" (AKA cell companies idea of unlimited, probably around 5GB).That's without any contract.
That seems like a good starting point for a home Skype pad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</id>
	<title>NSA</title>
	<author>in4mer</author>
	<datestamp>1266318840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fully encrypted, hahaha.  yeah right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fully encrypted , hahaha .
yeah right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fully encrypted, hahaha.
yeah right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162498</id>
	<title>Re:They'll probably be granted access.</title>
	<author>kidgenius</author>
	<datestamp>1266325800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where do you draw the line at phone vs. computer?  The phones these days ARE computers.  Heck, the Nexus one has a 1Ghz processor in it.  My first computer that I bought only had 850mhz, and it was no slouch back at the turn of the century (wow, it's fun to say that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you draw the line at phone vs. computer ? The phones these days ARE computers .
Heck , the Nexus one has a 1Ghz processor in it .
My first computer that I bought only had 850mhz , and it was no slouch back at the turn of the century ( wow , it 's fun to say that : ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you draw the line at phone vs. computer?  The phones these days ARE computers.
Heck, the Nexus one has a 1Ghz processor in it.
My first computer that I bought only had 850mhz, and it was no slouch back at the turn of the century (wow, it's fun to say that :))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31166554</id>
	<title>.CN restricts Skype? AU's 3 promo's it on moblies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's compare apples with oranges here... You've read about Verizon (above)...</p><p>First, here's what we've heard about Skype in China:</p><p>We've heard that China "forbits" (vanilla) Skype (due to its encryption... Can anyone confirm?<br>(I once chatted via Skype to a Chinese civil servant, who seemed to have Skype running on<br>her Computer screen (I didn't ask her to show me all the menus, etc. to confirm, eg, that it<br>wasn't a dummy Skype image... could even have been a non-functioning look-alike, I guess).</p><p>Someone said a Chinese company has licensed Skype's source code, and creared a ver-<br>sion of Skype that includes a "handy" door for Chinese gov't communications monitors, &amp;<br>that this Skype-compatible client must be used, instead of (vanilla) Skype. [ T or F? ]</p><p>- - -</p><p>Meanwhile, AU's '3' (now merged with Vodafone) have (a few years ago, already) intro'd the<br>earlier version of SkypePhone (GSM + Skype &amp; a very prominent Skype key, where Nokia<br>places their Select key).</p><p>More recently, '3' has been offering unlimited Skype (voice + text messaging, but NOT video,<br>as was offered in the UK - with 2 versions of the SkypePhone, last time we checked... by<br>contrast, AU's Skype system is just voice or test), on you choice of compatible handset, for<br>about $8 OVER your monthly Plan or Cap (&amp; usage) fees.</p><p>I've always wondered why kids at School or even Uni wouldn't buy up all the SkypePhones<br>they could find, eg, to connect kids in the same class, eg, for homework-help sessions,<br>a day or 2 before tests are given, eg, even if one of them were "grounded" at the time...</p><p>UK-only video Skype could be used to check-up on a baby (and/or baby-sitter...) from<br>anywhere they have 3 access... using "Auto-Answer" features &amp; the built-in camera.</p><p>Today, some Radio Amateurs put their radios (Rx -or- Rx &amp; Tx) on-line for others' use;<br>auto-Answering Skype clients send the audio (each way, if Tx is allowed by operator),<br>&amp; a web application gives remote users control of the radio dial.</p><p>On a desktop, the audio quality is quite good (if Internet services at each end permit),</p><p>I haven't had much success with SkypePhone in non-CBD areas of some cities, eg,<br>due to coverage issues (in AU, mostly).</p><p>Another change (from the good ole introductory days), made by AU's 3,their recent<br>deal to work with the dreaded de facto Aussie monopoly - Telstra - to give 3 access<br>to Telstra's data network (not the Next G, AFAIK, which would likely require Next G<br>handsets and possibly Telstra's handset "software".</p><p>3's Skype deal (to its end-users) gets unduly costly, whenever they "fall-back" to<br>Telstra's data network (outside of 3's broadband network areas), to the tune of<br>~ $100 / GB used (counting both upward &amp; downward data).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's compare apples with oranges here... You 've read about Verizon ( above ) ...First , here 's what we 've heard about Skype in China : We 've heard that China " forbits " ( vanilla ) Skype ( due to its encryption... Can anyone confirm ?
( I once chatted via Skype to a Chinese civil servant , who seemed to have Skype running onher Computer screen ( I did n't ask her to show me all the menus , etc .
to confirm , eg , that itwas n't a dummy Skype image... could even have been a non-functioning look-alike , I guess ) .Someone said a Chinese company has licensed Skype 's source code , and creared a ver-sion of Skype that includes a " handy " door for Chinese gov't communications monitors , &amp;that this Skype-compatible client must be used , instead of ( vanilla ) Skype .
[ T or F ?
] - - -Meanwhile , AU 's '3 ' ( now merged with Vodafone ) have ( a few years ago , already ) intro 'd theearlier version of SkypePhone ( GSM + Skype &amp; a very prominent Skype key , where Nokiaplaces their Select key ) .More recently , '3 ' has been offering unlimited Skype ( voice + text messaging , but NOT video,as was offered in the UK - with 2 versions of the SkypePhone , last time we checked... bycontrast , AU 's Skype system is just voice or test ) , on you choice of compatible handset , forabout $ 8 OVER your monthly Plan or Cap ( &amp; usage ) fees.I 've always wondered why kids at School or even Uni would n't buy up all the SkypePhonesthey could find , eg , to connect kids in the same class , eg , for homework-help sessions,a day or 2 before tests are given , eg , even if one of them were " grounded " at the time...UK-only video Skype could be used to check-up on a baby ( and/or baby-sitter... ) fromanywhere they have 3 access... using " Auto-Answer " features &amp; the built-in camera.Today , some Radio Amateurs put their radios ( Rx -or- Rx &amp; Tx ) on-line for others ' use ; auto-Answering Skype clients send the audio ( each way , if Tx is allowed by operator ) ,&amp; a web application gives remote users control of the radio dial.On a desktop , the audio quality is quite good ( if Internet services at each end permit ) ,I have n't had much success with SkypePhone in non-CBD areas of some cities , eg,due to coverage issues ( in AU , mostly ) .Another change ( from the good ole introductory days ) , made by AU 's 3,their recentdeal to work with the dreaded de facto Aussie monopoly - Telstra - to give 3 accessto Telstra 's data network ( not the Next G , AFAIK , which would likely require Next Ghandsets and possibly Telstra 's handset " software " .3 's Skype deal ( to its end-users ) gets unduly costly , whenever they " fall-back " toTelstra 's data network ( outside of 3 's broadband network areas ) , to the tune of ~ $ 100 / GB used ( counting both upward &amp; downward data ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's compare apples with oranges here... You've read about Verizon (above)...First, here's what we've heard about Skype in China:We've heard that China "forbits" (vanilla) Skype (due to its encryption... Can anyone confirm?
(I once chatted via Skype to a Chinese civil servant, who seemed to have Skype running onher Computer screen (I didn't ask her to show me all the menus, etc.
to confirm, eg, that itwasn't a dummy Skype image... could even have been a non-functioning look-alike, I guess).Someone said a Chinese company has licensed Skype's source code, and creared a ver-sion of Skype that includes a "handy" door for Chinese gov't communications monitors, &amp;that this Skype-compatible client must be used, instead of (vanilla) Skype.
[ T or F?
]- - -Meanwhile, AU's '3' (now merged with Vodafone) have (a few years ago, already) intro'd theearlier version of SkypePhone (GSM + Skype &amp; a very prominent Skype key, where Nokiaplaces their Select key).More recently, '3' has been offering unlimited Skype (voice + text messaging, but NOT video,as was offered in the UK - with 2 versions of the SkypePhone, last time we checked... bycontrast, AU's Skype system is just voice or test), on you choice of compatible handset, forabout $8 OVER your monthly Plan or Cap (&amp; usage) fees.I've always wondered why kids at School or even Uni wouldn't buy up all the SkypePhonesthey could find, eg, to connect kids in the same class, eg, for homework-help sessions,a day or 2 before tests are given, eg, even if one of them were "grounded" at the time...UK-only video Skype could be used to check-up on a baby (and/or baby-sitter...) fromanywhere they have 3 access... using "Auto-Answer" features &amp; the built-in camera.Today, some Radio Amateurs put their radios (Rx -or- Rx &amp; Tx) on-line for others' use;auto-Answering Skype clients send the audio (each way, if Tx is allowed by operator),&amp; a web application gives remote users control of the radio dial.On a desktop, the audio quality is quite good (if Internet services at each end permit),I haven't had much success with SkypePhone in non-CBD areas of some cities, eg,due to coverage issues (in AU, mostly).Another change (from the good ole introductory days), made by AU's 3,their recentdeal to work with the dreaded de facto Aussie monopoly - Telstra - to give 3 accessto Telstra's data network (not the Next G, AFAIK, which would likely require Next Ghandsets and possibly Telstra's handset "software".3's Skype deal (to its end-users) gets unduly costly, whenever they "fall-back" toTelstra's data network (outside of 3's broadband network areas), to the tune of~ $100 / GB used (counting both upward &amp; downward data).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161502</id>
	<title>Why wonder?</title>
	<author>cstdenis</author>
	<datestamp>1266320640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.</p> </div><p>Why would they care, they have a backdoor into skype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic .
Why would they care , they have a backdoor into skype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.
Why would they care, they have a backdoor into skype.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>UndyingShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1266318960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From gizmodo.com:

However, it appears the service is pretty gimped as you can't call Skype out to regular lines domestically in order to save minutes. Even on AT&amp;T (of all carriers), the fring iPhone app allows Skype-out calling (even though the Skype app still technically does not). When Verizon allows domestic Skype-out, we'll celebrate in full.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From gizmodo.com : However , it appears the service is pretty gimped as you ca n't call Skype out to regular lines domestically in order to save minutes .
Even on AT&amp;T ( of all carriers ) , the fring iPhone app allows Skype-out calling ( even though the Skype app still technically does not ) .
When Verizon allows domestic Skype-out , we 'll celebrate in full .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From gizmodo.com:

However, it appears the service is pretty gimped as you can't call Skype out to regular lines domestically in order to save minutes.
Even on AT&amp;T (of all carriers), the fring iPhone app allows Skype-out calling (even though the Skype app still technically does not).
When Verizon allows domestic Skype-out, we'll celebrate in full.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161620</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1266321300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing. I've avoided any 'smart' phones up until recently, because I refused to pay $80+ per month. But, I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $60/mo (it's actually a little less than that, but what the discount giveth, the taxes taketh away, so it comes to almost $60 exactly), gives me 500 voice minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data.</p><p>My previous voice plan with Verizon, which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $45/mo (40 before taxes), gave me 300 minutes, and no text or data. So, I figured, $15/mo, with an extra 200 minutes, plus text and data, isn't too bad.</p><p>Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers. That might be true, I'm not sure. In Ohio, where I live and work, the coverage seems excellent. I don't travel much, but in the little bit of travel I've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service, I had coverage in most places, except for extremely rural areas. In some places, T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&amp;T's network (West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage, but the phone used AT&amp;T there).</p><p>It's good enough for me, anyhow. YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing .
I 've avoided any 'smart ' phones up until recently , because I refused to pay $ 80 + per month .
But , I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $ 60/mo ( it 's actually a little less than that , but what the discount giveth , the taxes taketh away , so it comes to almost $ 60 exactly ) , gives me 500 voice minutes , unlimited text , unlimited data.My previous voice plan with Verizon , which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $ 45/mo ( 40 before taxes ) , gave me 300 minutes , and no text or data .
So , I figured , $ 15/mo , with an extra 200 minutes , plus text and data , is n't too bad.Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers .
That might be true , I 'm not sure .
In Ohio , where I live and work , the coverage seems excellent .
I do n't travel much , but in the little bit of travel I 've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service , I had coverage in most places , except for extremely rural areas .
In some places , T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&amp;T 's network ( West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage , but the phone used AT&amp;T there ) .It 's good enough for me , anyhow .
YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing.
I've avoided any 'smart' phones up until recently, because I refused to pay $80+ per month.
But, I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $60/mo (it's actually a little less than that, but what the discount giveth, the taxes taketh away, so it comes to almost $60 exactly), gives me 500 voice minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data.My previous voice plan with Verizon, which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $45/mo (40 before taxes), gave me 300 minutes, and no text or data.
So, I figured, $15/mo, with an extra 200 minutes, plus text and data, isn't too bad.Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers.
That might be true, I'm not sure.
In Ohio, where I live and work, the coverage seems excellent.
I don't travel much, but in the little bit of travel I've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service, I had coverage in most places, except for extremely rural areas.
In some places, T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&amp;T's network (West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage, but the phone used AT&amp;T there).It's good enough for me, anyhow.
YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA uses a program called Trireme that analyze data forwarded to them by Raptor boxes. To achieve throughput they essentially map every IP address into it's own FSA. To achieve the memory/speed footprint they need, it all runs on Itanium servers running 32gb ram. Racks of em. That business about a secret room @att in california: True.</p><p>Now that Skype is firmly under US jurisdiction since eBay purchased them, tapping calls should be no problem. If you need encryption you MUST do it on your own end-to-end</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA uses a program called Trireme that analyze data forwarded to them by Raptor boxes .
To achieve throughput they essentially map every IP address into it 's own FSA .
To achieve the memory/speed footprint they need , it all runs on Itanium servers running 32gb ram .
Racks of em .
That business about a secret room @ att in california : True.Now that Skype is firmly under US jurisdiction since eBay purchased them , tapping calls should be no problem .
If you need encryption you MUST do it on your own end-to-end</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA uses a program called Trireme that analyze data forwarded to them by Raptor boxes.
To achieve throughput they essentially map every IP address into it's own FSA.
To achieve the memory/speed footprint they need, it all runs on Itanium servers running 32gb ram.
Racks of em.
That business about a secret room @att in california: True.Now that Skype is firmly under US jurisdiction since eBay purchased them, tapping calls should be no problem.
If you need encryption you MUST do it on your own end-to-end</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114</id>
	<title>Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266318960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More and more people are purchasing data plans. And it sure seems like every major network is pushing to move as many users to an unlimited plan as possible. Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.</p><p>Why complain about people using data when data plans are so profitable? And does it matter if they're not using minutes if they pay for an unlimited plan anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more people are purchasing data plans .
And it sure seems like every major network is pushing to move as many users to an unlimited plan as possible .
Where many people used to have service in the $ 30- $ 40 range , more and more people seem to be paying closer to $ 100 ( pre-tax ) for cell service.Why complain about people using data when data plans are so profitable ?
And does it matter if they 're not using minutes if they pay for an unlimited plan anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more people are purchasing data plans.
And it sure seems like every major network is pushing to move as many users to an unlimited plan as possible.
Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.Why complain about people using data when data plans are so profitable?
And does it matter if they're not using minutes if they pay for an unlimited plan anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161354</id>
	<title>is this thing on?</title>
	<author>djupedal</author>
	<datestamp>1266319980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW???</htmltext>
<tokenext>CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31180168</id>
	<title>Who cares about encryption?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, if it's only law enforcement that can do it, why would you care?

I don't want just anyone listening to my calls, but if it means that those wanting to do harm lose an easy and convenient way to have their communication intercepted then I'm fine with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , if it 's only law enforcement that can do it , why would you care ?
I do n't want just anyone listening to my calls , but if it means that those wanting to do harm lose an easy and convenient way to have their communication intercepted then I 'm fine with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, if it's only law enforcement that can do it, why would you care?
I don't want just anyone listening to my calls, but if it means that those wanting to do harm lose an easy and convenient way to have their communication intercepted then I'm fine with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163616</id>
	<title>Skype is European</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1266333420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd imagine European intelligence agencies have vast access to Skype calls.  eBay's ownership might have opened things more for the NSA, but the company remains based in Europe.</p><p>I'd expect the NSA has access when they need it, but maybe that requires European cooperation.  If so, I'd say this stands as testament to the decline of American soft power, and the damage that monopolies and copyright law are doing the U.S.'s innovative spirit.</p><p>I'd imagine that Bush's people would be perfectly happy outsourcing Skype related sigint, just a minor issue while Bush was gutting the U.S. intelligence establishment for disagreeing with his Iraq war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine European intelligence agencies have vast access to Skype calls .
eBay 's ownership might have opened things more for the NSA , but the company remains based in Europe.I 'd expect the NSA has access when they need it , but maybe that requires European cooperation .
If so , I 'd say this stands as testament to the decline of American soft power , and the damage that monopolies and copyright law are doing the U.S. 's innovative spirit.I 'd imagine that Bush 's people would be perfectly happy outsourcing Skype related sigint , just a minor issue while Bush was gutting the U.S. intelligence establishment for disagreeing with his Iraq war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine European intelligence agencies have vast access to Skype calls.
eBay's ownership might have opened things more for the NSA, but the company remains based in Europe.I'd expect the NSA has access when they need it, but maybe that requires European cooperation.
If so, I'd say this stands as testament to the decline of American soft power, and the damage that monopolies and copyright law are doing the U.S.'s innovative spirit.I'd imagine that Bush's people would be perfectly happy outsourcing Skype related sigint, just a minor issue while Bush was gutting the U.S. intelligence establishment for disagreeing with his Iraq war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184</id>
	<title>They'll probably be granted access.</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1266319200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US at least <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications\_Assistance\_for\_Law\_Enforcement\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">CALEA</a> [wikipedia.org] requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks.  Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications.  And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint.  But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.  IANAL, so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US at least CALEA [ wikipedia.org ] requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks .
Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications .
And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint .
But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now , then CALEA would probably apply , and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement .
IANAL , so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US at least CALEA [wikipedia.org] requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks.
Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications.
And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint.
But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.
IANAL, so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161300</id>
	<title>Not likely to be a problem</title>
	<author>SpooForBrains</author>
	<datestamp>1266319740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like it's going to be essentially the same service that 3 mobile have been offering in the UK for a few years now. The Skype calls are handled through a gateway at the carrier. Between the carrier and the handset they function the same as a regular voice call (so they're nice and tappable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like it 's going to be essentially the same service that 3 mobile have been offering in the UK for a few years now .
The Skype calls are handled through a gateway at the carrier .
Between the carrier and the handset they function the same as a regular voice call ( so they 're nice and tappable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like it's going to be essentially the same service that 3 mobile have been offering in the UK for a few years now.
The Skype calls are handled through a gateway at the carrier.
Between the carrier and the handset they function the same as a regular voice call (so they're nice and tappable).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161496</id>
	<title>Uh</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1266320640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Verizon is allowing me to do something that I could already do?  I've had Skype on my Winmo smart-ish phone for awhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Verizon is allowing me to do something that I could already do ?
I 've had Skype on my Winmo smart-ish phone for awhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Verizon is allowing me to do something that I could already do?
I've had Skype on my Winmo smart-ish phone for awhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161418</id>
	<title>Latency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266320280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much total latency will this add? hundreds of milliseconds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much total latency will this add ?
hundreds of milliseconds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much total latency will this add?
hundreds of milliseconds?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31167106</id>
	<title>in Verizon english</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, unlimited in Verizon English means only for the 1st 5GB of band width, then its 1 cent a megabyte there on, you do the math!
an ex verizon employee</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , unlimited in Verizon English means only for the 1st 5GB of band width , then its 1 cent a megabyte there on , you do the math !
an ex verizon employee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, unlimited in Verizon English means only for the 1st 5GB of band width, then its 1 cent a megabyte there on, you do the math!
an ex verizon employee</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31175050</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also have 30 racks of unicorns connected to 12 parallel magical wardrobes. Thankfully the synergy of the market's profitability matrix helps colapsify this into a more believeable super fact that only our foil of bronze can protect us from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also have 30 racks of unicorns connected to 12 parallel magical wardrobes .
Thankfully the synergy of the market 's profitability matrix helps colapsify this into a more believeable super fact that only our foil of bronze can protect us from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also have 30 racks of unicorns connected to 12 parallel magical wardrobes.
Thankfully the synergy of the market's profitability matrix helps colapsify this into a more believeable super fact that only our foil of bronze can protect us from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162252</id>
	<title>Latency</title>
	<author>bevoblake</author>
	<datestamp>1266324540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 3G cell connection has nasty latency (200ish pings generally) and made for a poor skype experience when tethered to my computer.  Delays in voice calls are pretty obnoxious when accustomed to cell and landline connections - I don't see this as a viable competitor to cell minute usage even if Verizon allowed skype over 3G to US landlines.<br> <br>Has anyone else had any contrary experience?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 3G cell connection has nasty latency ( 200ish pings generally ) and made for a poor skype experience when tethered to my computer .
Delays in voice calls are pretty obnoxious when accustomed to cell and landline connections - I do n't see this as a viable competitor to cell minute usage even if Verizon allowed skype over 3G to US landlines .
Has anyone else had any contrary experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 3G cell connection has nasty latency (200ish pings generally) and made for a poor skype experience when tethered to my computer.
Delays in voice calls are pretty obnoxious when accustomed to cell and landline connections - I don't see this as a viable competitor to cell minute usage even if Verizon allowed skype over 3G to US landlines.
Has anyone else had any contrary experience?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165278</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me when I can upload my own ringtones to a Verizon phone.</p><p>Their ringtone store would be nice if it actually had <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEKaCJhtk0" title="youtube.com">songs</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDA6f\_zijQ" title="youtube.com">that</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YpGwMmajrI" title="youtube.com">I</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwWH7eqpwA" title="youtube.com">wanted</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Moreover, I'm not going to pay $1-$5 for songs I already own.</p><p>Their wireless service is great where I live but their media platform is very locked-in. Absolutely no freedom to make use of my own media. Until that changes, I'll be sticking with a cheapo $50 phone and a music player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me when I can upload my own ringtones to a Verizon phone.Their ringtone store would be nice if it actually had songs [ youtube.com ] that [ youtube.com ] I [ youtube.com ] wanted [ youtube.com ] .Moreover , I 'm not going to pay $ 1- $ 5 for songs I already own.Their wireless service is great where I live but their media platform is very locked-in .
Absolutely no freedom to make use of my own media .
Until that changes , I 'll be sticking with a cheapo $ 50 phone and a music player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me when I can upload my own ringtones to a Verizon phone.Their ringtone store would be nice if it actually had songs [youtube.com] that [youtube.com] I [youtube.com] wanted [youtube.com].Moreover, I'm not going to pay $1-$5 for songs I already own.Their wireless service is great where I live but their media platform is very locked-in.
Absolutely no freedom to make use of my own media.
Until that changes, I'll be sticking with a cheapo $50 phone and a music player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162214</id>
	<title>Who is wondering?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1266324360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Some[who?] are wondering..." Would it have killed you to state?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some [ who ?
] are wondering... " Would it have killed you to state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some[who?
] are wondering..." Would it have killed you to state?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163192</id>
	<title>Re:One guys twitter...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266330060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sad when TFA is almost as short as the link to it, god twitter sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad when TFA is almost as short as the link to it , god twitter sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad when TFA is almost as short as the link to it, god twitter sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31166490</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother with backdooring the encryption when you can just <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029\_3-6140191.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">record what you want at the source?</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother with backdooring the encryption when you can just record what you want at the source ?
[ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother with backdooring the encryption when you can just record what you want at the source?
[cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31173372</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1265053140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That being said, are there any non-US based, encrypted voip clients that will work on smartphones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , are there any non-US based , encrypted voip clients that will work on smartphones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, are there any non-US based, encrypted voip clients that will work on smartphones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874</id>
	<title>If Verizon is now Skype-friendly...</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1266322740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Verizon is now Skype-friendly, then the next thing I want to see is for them to allow Skype calls from their FiOS set-top boxes.  These boxes have USB ports and are already connected to the Internet.  It would be a great way for Verizon to really stick it to those cable companies (whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright <i>nasty</i> lately) -- imagine being able to just plug a $20 webcam into your set-top box and effortlessly videoconference with Skype users anywhere.<br> <br>C'mon Verizon, the infrastructure is already in place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a few weeks of development and you'd have a killer advantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Verizon is now Skype-friendly , then the next thing I want to see is for them to allow Skype calls from their FiOS set-top boxes .
These boxes have USB ports and are already connected to the Internet .
It would be a great way for Verizon to really stick it to those cable companies ( whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately ) -- imagine being able to just plug a $ 20 webcam into your set-top box and effortlessly videoconference with Skype users anywhere .
C'mon Verizon , the infrastructure is already in place ... a few weeks of development and you 'd have a killer advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Verizon is now Skype-friendly, then the next thing I want to see is for them to allow Skype calls from their FiOS set-top boxes.
These boxes have USB ports and are already connected to the Internet.
It would be a great way for Verizon to really stick it to those cable companies (whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately) -- imagine being able to just plug a $20 webcam into your set-top box and effortlessly videoconference with Skype users anywhere.
C'mon Verizon, the infrastructure is already in place ... a few weeks of development and you'd have a killer advantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162582</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1266326340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given this is the agency that says we need to upgrade our 1024 bit keys because they're not strong enough, I don't think we need to worry about them getting whatever they need no matter what we do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given this is the agency that says we need to upgrade our 1024 bit keys because they 're not strong enough , I do n't think we need to worry about them getting whatever they need no matter what we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given this is the agency that says we need to upgrade our 1024 bit keys because they're not strong enough, I don't think we need to worry about them getting whatever they need no matter what we do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161674</id>
	<title>Re:They'll probably be granted access.</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266321540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except that Skype would not be the "telecommunications provider" in this context.  Verizon (or other ISPs) would.  Thus, Verizon is required to have backdoors to allow third parties to intercept<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *drumroll*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the ciphertext.</p><p>Don't be a provider.  Be a software author.  CALEA doesn't say anything about programmers or software vendors.  CALEA is about the people in charge of the wires.  CALEA is obsolete if people use modern tech.</p><p>OTOH, surely Skype, the company that made a specially-modified government-approved version of their software for use in China, actually <em>would</em> cooperate.  And that raises the question: who has audited how Skype does key exchange?  Who certifies identities?  Skype, that's who.</p><p>The story here is VoIP in general.  Skype itself is a specific sideline that will hopefully fade into history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now , then CALEA would probably apply , and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.Except that Skype would not be the " telecommunications provider " in this context .
Verizon ( or other ISPs ) would .
Thus , Verizon is required to have backdoors to allow third parties to intercept ... * drumroll * ... the ciphertext.Do n't be a provider .
Be a software author .
CALEA does n't say anything about programmers or software vendors .
CALEA is about the people in charge of the wires .
CALEA is obsolete if people use modern tech.OTOH , surely Skype , the company that made a specially-modified government-approved version of their software for use in China , actually would cooperate .
And that raises the question : who has audited how Skype does key exchange ?
Who certifies identities ?
Skype , that 's who.The story here is VoIP in general .
Skype itself is a specific sideline that will hopefully fade into history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.Except that Skype would not be the "telecommunications provider" in this context.
Verizon (or other ISPs) would.
Thus, Verizon is required to have backdoors to allow third parties to intercept ... *drumroll* ... the ciphertext.Don't be a provider.
Be a software author.
CALEA doesn't say anything about programmers or software vendors.
CALEA is about the people in charge of the wires.
CALEA is obsolete if people use modern tech.OTOH, surely Skype, the company that made a specially-modified government-approved version of their software for use in China, actually would cooperate.
And that raises the question: who has audited how Skype does key exchange?
Who certifies identities?
Skype, that's who.The story here is VoIP in general.
Skype itself is a specific sideline that will hopefully fade into history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426</id>
	<title>Re:Data and unlimited plans</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1266320280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan.  Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.. And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data...  The only exception have been air-cards for devices, like the MiFi, but they seem to have much more expensive data plans, and don't pretend to call them unlimited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan .
Unfortunately , any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $ 40/month for voice before they will connect you.. And then again , they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice , nor Data... The only exception have been air-cards for devices , like the MiFi , but they seem to have much more expensive data plans , and do n't pretend to call them unlimited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan.
Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.. And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data...  The only exception have been air-cards for devices, like the MiFi, but they seem to have much more expensive data plans, and don't pretend to call them unlimited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31200166</id>
	<title>Verizon is Obsolete</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1266599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its the FCC that keeps it in business.
<br> <br>
IF we had been given our first amendment right
to put Radio Internet Routers on the roof
Cellphone time would not be controlled  by
the people with there hands in our pockets.
<br> <br>
Where do you go that  there is not a roof top
with in 5 miles.  But if all the Radio bandwidth
is sold to the "MAN" There is none left for
"The People"  remember the people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the FCC that keeps it in business .
IF we had been given our first amendment right to put Radio Internet Routers on the roof Cellphone time would not be controlled by the people with there hands in our pockets .
Where do you go that there is not a roof top with in 5 miles .
But if all the Radio bandwidth is sold to the " MAN " There is none left for " The People " remember the people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the FCC that keeps it in business.
IF we had been given our first amendment right
to put Radio Internet Routers on the roof
Cellphone time would not be controlled  by
the people with there hands in our pockets.
Where do you go that  there is not a roof top
with in 5 miles.
But if all the Radio bandwidth
is sold to the "MAN" There is none left for
"The People"  remember the people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31166490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31171858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31174060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31173372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31175050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31200166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31164748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_201257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31171858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31166490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31175050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31173372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31178338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31163192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31174060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31165610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31164748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31161124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31200166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31162430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_201257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_201257.31167106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
