<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_2012234</id>
	<title>Microsoft Says It Never Meant To Knock Cryptome Offline</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267087800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft withdrew on Thursday its demand that Cryptome.org yank the 'Microsoft Global Criminal Spy Guide' document from the site, and said it had <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162358/Microsoft\_retreats\_from\_demand\_that\_killed\_whistleblower\_site">never intended for the whistleblower's domain to be knocked off the Web</a>. 'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman. 'We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document's removal.' The document, a 17-page guide to law enforcement on how to obtain information about users of Microsoft's online services, including its Windows Live Hotmail, the Xbox Live gaming network and its Windows Live SkyDrive storage service, was published by John Young, who runs Cryptome.org, on Feb. 20. Earlier this week, Microsoft demanded that Young remove the document from his site, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. When Young refused, his Internet provider shut down the site, and Network Solutions, the registrar of Young's domain, put a 'legal lock' on the domain name. The last prevented him from transferring the URL to another ISP. Computerworld blogger Preston Gralla dug into the document today in his <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/15655/leaked\_microsoft\_intelligence\_document\_heres\_what\_microsoft\_will\_reveal\_to\_police\_about\_you">'Leaked Microsoft intelligence document: Here's what Microsoft will reveal to police about you'</a> post."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft withdrew on Thursday its demand that Cryptome.org yank the 'Microsoft Global Criminal Spy Guide ' document from the site , and said it had never intended for the whistleblower 's domain to be knocked off the Web .
'In this case , we did not ask that this site be taken down , only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed, ' said a Microsoft spokeswoman .
'We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document 's removal .
' The document , a 17-page guide to law enforcement on how to obtain information about users of Microsoft 's online services , including its Windows Live Hotmail , the Xbox Live gaming network and its Windows Live SkyDrive storage service , was published by John Young , who runs Cryptome.org , on Feb. 20. Earlier this week , Microsoft demanded that Young remove the document from his site , citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act .
When Young refused , his Internet provider shut down the site , and Network Solutions , the registrar of Young 's domain , put a 'legal lock ' on the domain name .
The last prevented him from transferring the URL to another ISP .
Computerworld blogger Preston Gralla dug into the document today in his 'Leaked Microsoft intelligence document : Here 's what Microsoft will reveal to police about you ' post .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft withdrew on Thursday its demand that Cryptome.org yank the 'Microsoft Global Criminal Spy Guide' document from the site, and said it had never intended for the whistleblower's domain to be knocked off the Web.
'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman.
'We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document's removal.
' The document, a 17-page guide to law enforcement on how to obtain information about users of Microsoft's online services, including its Windows Live Hotmail, the Xbox Live gaming network and its Windows Live SkyDrive storage service, was published by John Young, who runs Cryptome.org, on Feb. 20. Earlier this week, Microsoft demanded that Young remove the document from his site, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
When Young refused, his Internet provider shut down the site, and Network Solutions, the registrar of Young's domain, put a 'legal lock' on the domain name.
The last prevented him from transferring the URL to another ISP.
Computerworld blogger Preston Gralla dug into the document today in his 'Leaked Microsoft intelligence document: Here's what Microsoft will reveal to police about you' post.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279108</id>
	<title>Re:Analysis of Statement</title>
	<author>urulokion</author>
	<datestamp>1267098420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMCA takedown provisions don't say take down the entire site. The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content. In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.</p><p>They way a take down is supposed to work is this.<br>1) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company.<br>2) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice.<br>3) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider.<br>4) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days.<br>5) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline. And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.</p><p>The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage. And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline. And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say "I'm in the right, put that material back up." And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMCA takedown provisions do n't say take down the entire site .
The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content .
In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.They way a take down is supposed to work is this.1 ) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company.2 ) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice.3 ) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider.4 ) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days.5 ) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline .
And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage .
And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline .
And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say " I 'm in the right , put that material back up .
" And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMCA takedown provisions don't say take down the entire site.
The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content.
In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.They way a take down is supposed to work is this.1) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company.2) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice.3) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider.4) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days.5) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline.
And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage.
And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline.
And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say "I'm in the right, put that material back up.
" And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279816</id>
	<title>Re:That's the DMCA for you...</title>
	<author>cortana</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server</p></div><p>Cite please?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider , server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole serverCite please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole serverCite please?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278416</id>
	<title>You missed what's incorrect &amp; newsworthy about</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1267095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS wants to suppress one file, JY refuses, MS sends DMCA letter to Netsol requesting taking down the one file.  That's mildly newsworthy because it's cryptome and MS, but that's not the big event.  Netsol took down the whole site, not just the one file, which is especially newsworthy because of the importance of cryptome and because it exceeds their requirements, and then Netsol the Registrar locked the domain name, which isn't at all required, and is newsworthy because they're locking domain names for non-domain-related reasons.</p><p>And MS is saying "sorry" not only because JY asserted his rights to dispute the DMCA takedown and thousands of people yelled at MS, but because MS is getting blamed for Netsol's overkill overreaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS wants to suppress one file , JY refuses , MS sends DMCA letter to Netsol requesting taking down the one file .
That 's mildly newsworthy because it 's cryptome and MS , but that 's not the big event .
Netsol took down the whole site , not just the one file , which is especially newsworthy because of the importance of cryptome and because it exceeds their requirements , and then Netsol the Registrar locked the domain name , which is n't at all required , and is newsworthy because they 're locking domain names for non-domain-related reasons.And MS is saying " sorry " not only because JY asserted his rights to dispute the DMCA takedown and thousands of people yelled at MS , but because MS is getting blamed for Netsol 's overkill overreaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS wants to suppress one file, JY refuses, MS sends DMCA letter to Netsol requesting taking down the one file.
That's mildly newsworthy because it's cryptome and MS, but that's not the big event.
Netsol took down the whole site, not just the one file, which is especially newsworthy because of the importance of cryptome and because it exceeds their requirements, and then Netsol the Registrar locked the domain name, which isn't at all required, and is newsworthy because they're locking domain names for non-domain-related reasons.And MS is saying "sorry" not only because JY asserted his rights to dispute the DMCA takedown and thousands of people yelled at MS, but because MS is getting blamed for Netsol's overkill overreaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278452</id>
	<title>Too convenient</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1267095600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>tin\_hat\_mode\_on</b> <br>
Hmmm this is too convenient... maybe MS <b>wanted</b> the document to "leak", giving false assurances to the masses? In actuality, they are logging every single bit that passes through!<br>
<b>tin\_hat\_mode\_off</b> <br>
nah... couldn't happen... or could it?<br>
How could a document like this "leak" out? By whom? A law enforcement agency employee? A Microsoft employee? The document is actually pretty benign - it basically states that the data logged is that which is also logged by every web server in existence, nothing more serious than that. Pretty good-natured from MS.<br>
Anyways... stay crunchy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>tin \ _hat \ _mode \ _on Hmmm this is too convenient... maybe MS wanted the document to " leak " , giving false assurances to the masses ?
In actuality , they are logging every single bit that passes through !
tin \ _hat \ _mode \ _off nah... could n't happen... or could it ?
How could a document like this " leak " out ?
By whom ?
A law enforcement agency employee ?
A Microsoft employee ?
The document is actually pretty benign - it basically states that the data logged is that which is also logged by every web server in existence , nothing more serious than that .
Pretty good-natured from MS . Anyways... stay crunchy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tin\_hat\_mode\_on 
Hmmm this is too convenient... maybe MS wanted the document to "leak", giving false assurances to the masses?
In actuality, they are logging every single bit that passes through!
tin\_hat\_mode\_off 
nah... couldn't happen... or could it?
How could a document like this "leak" out?
By whom?
A law enforcement agency employee?
A Microsoft employee?
The document is actually pretty benign - it basically states that the data logged is that which is also logged by every web server in existence, nothing more serious than that.
Pretty good-natured from MS.
Anyways... stay crunchy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278920</id>
	<title>Yep....</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in other news, the tooth fairy gave me a blowjob last night....</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in other news , the tooth fairy gave me a blowjob last night... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in other news, the tooth fairy gave me a blowjob last night....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277992</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.</p><p>I had clicked "reply" and was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.  -   MS is not acting honorably, so much as seeing it blow up in their face with bad publicity and they decided they'd better retreat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; In any case , when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them , they decided correctly that it was n't worth the fight.I had clicked " reply " and was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it .
- MS is not acting honorably , so much as seeing it blow up in their face with bad publicity and they decided they 'd better retreat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.I had clicked "reply" and was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.
-   MS is not acting honorably, so much as seeing it blow up in their face with bad publicity and they decided they'd better retreat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280910</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new to see here; same old story</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267112760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way to completely mischaracterize the situation.  This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the DMCA and shitty web hosts.  The same thing happened my website over a copyright dispute with another individual.  GoDaddy suspended my domain instead of just blocking the content.  Trying to pin this on Microsoft is pathetic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to completely mischaracterize the situation .
This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the DMCA and shitty web hosts .
The same thing happened my website over a copyright dispute with another individual .
GoDaddy suspended my domain instead of just blocking the content .
Trying to pin this on Microsoft is pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to completely mischaracterize the situation.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the DMCA and shitty web hosts.
The same thing happened my website over a copyright dispute with another individual.
GoDaddy suspended my domain instead of just blocking the content.
Trying to pin this on Microsoft is pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278480</id>
	<title>Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions...</i></p><p>No problem,  I'm already ten years into a lifetime boycott of them for employing some pig-ignorant, clueless, foul-mouthed, abusive, knuckle-dragging  trailer-trash that I had to deal with in their alleged customer support department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions...No problem , I 'm already ten years into a lifetime boycott of them for employing some pig-ignorant , clueless , foul-mouthed , abusive , knuckle-dragging trailer-trash that I had to deal with in their alleged customer support department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions...No problem,  I'm already ten years into a lifetime boycott of them for employing some pig-ignorant, clueless, foul-mouthed, abusive, knuckle-dragging  trailer-trash that I had to deal with in their alleged customer support department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278312</id>
	<title>Re:Hell is getting cold`</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1267095060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'll try to explain it. Microsoft creates some feel-good document which makes it look like they aren't collecting personal information in terrifying quantities. This document somehow "leaks." Microsoft files a DMCA takedown. NetSol overreacts. Microsoft steps in and says "We didn't mean for THAT to happen, and by the way, you can keep the document."</p><p>End result? Microsoft makes another company look like an ass, makes itself look reasonable, and gets a document out there that paints a rosy picture of personal privacy. For all we know, the document is a fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'll try to explain it .
Microsoft creates some feel-good document which makes it look like they are n't collecting personal information in terrifying quantities .
This document somehow " leaks .
" Microsoft files a DMCA takedown .
NetSol overreacts .
Microsoft steps in and says " We did n't mean for THAT to happen , and by the way , you can keep the document .
" End result ?
Microsoft makes another company look like an ass , makes itself look reasonable , and gets a document out there that paints a rosy picture of personal privacy .
For all we know , the document is a fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'll try to explain it.
Microsoft creates some feel-good document which makes it look like they aren't collecting personal information in terrifying quantities.
This document somehow "leaks.
" Microsoft files a DMCA takedown.
NetSol overreacts.
Microsoft steps in and says "We didn't mean for THAT to happen, and by the way, you can keep the document.
"End result?
Microsoft makes another company look like an ass, makes itself look reasonable, and gets a document out there that paints a rosy picture of personal privacy.
For all we know, the document is a fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279020</id>
	<title>be careful</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1267097940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay wtf is going on lately. MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice. Did I miss the memo?</p></div><p>Yes you did.  be careful; it's a cookbook!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay wtf is going on lately .
MS actually admitting mistakes left and right , trying to play nice .
Did I miss the memo ? Yes you did .
be careful ; it 's a cookbook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay wtf is going on lately.
MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice.
Did I miss the memo?Yes you did.
be careful; it's a cookbook!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646</id>
	<title>Hell is getting cold`</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1267092420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay wtf is going on lately. MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice. Did I miss the memo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay wtf is going on lately .
MS actually admitting mistakes left and right , trying to play nice .
Did I miss the memo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay wtf is going on lately.
MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice.
Did I miss the memo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281716</id>
	<title>Not to worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267121700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsofts anal retention coupled with the  Streisand Effect (tm) has ensured that there are more than a million places on the internet where their evil intentions can be viewed, reviewed and picked apart.  I even have a copy right here on my computer.  Its a bit of a dry read, but I saw that all user information for all of their worldwide services --xbox, email, online services, everything -- is stored in the US, and with the US Patriot Act, all instantly available and in databases owned, operated and archived for full use by the US government (read NSA, CIA, everyone else).  Now every Microsoft user doesn't just have their names sold to whichever retailer is offering the most cash, but the US government has open files on every Microsoft user who ever got online, and also some information about anyone who sent them information, along with the content of the message.  No special request required.  Microsot offers all of the information, and the guide provides a quickie guide for government boffins so that there is no confusion about what Microsoft is offering up.  Instead of just handing everything over, microsoft is handing all of their users private information on a silver plate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsofts anal retention coupled with the Streisand Effect ( tm ) has ensured that there are more than a million places on the internet where their evil intentions can be viewed , reviewed and picked apart .
I even have a copy right here on my computer .
Its a bit of a dry read , but I saw that all user information for all of their worldwide services --xbox , email , online services , everything -- is stored in the US , and with the US Patriot Act , all instantly available and in databases owned , operated and archived for full use by the US government ( read NSA , CIA , everyone else ) .
Now every Microsoft user does n't just have their names sold to whichever retailer is offering the most cash , but the US government has open files on every Microsoft user who ever got online , and also some information about anyone who sent them information , along with the content of the message .
No special request required .
Microsot offers all of the information , and the guide provides a quickie guide for government boffins so that there is no confusion about what Microsoft is offering up .
Instead of just handing everything over , microsoft is handing all of their users private information on a silver plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsofts anal retention coupled with the  Streisand Effect (tm) has ensured that there are more than a million places on the internet where their evil intentions can be viewed, reviewed and picked apart.
I even have a copy right here on my computer.
Its a bit of a dry read, but I saw that all user information for all of their worldwide services --xbox, email, online services, everything -- is stored in the US, and with the US Patriot Act, all instantly available and in databases owned, operated and archived for full use by the US government (read NSA, CIA, everyone else).
Now every Microsoft user doesn't just have their names sold to whichever retailer is offering the most cash, but the US government has open files on every Microsoft user who ever got online, and also some information about anyone who sent them information, along with the content of the message.
No special request required.
Microsot offers all of the information, and the guide provides a quickie guide for government boffins so that there is no confusion about what Microsoft is offering up.
Instead of just handing everything over, microsoft is handing all of their users private information on a silver plate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281466</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've been up at the top of his list for a while now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been up at the top of his list for a while now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been up at the top of his list for a while now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042</id>
	<title>Analysis of Statement</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1267094100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman."</p><p>This is total, exquisite bullshit. The fact is, a DMCA request in this case triggers a site takedown if the owner disagrees with taking down the material.</p><p>Did MS verbally utter the request, "Will you please take down the site?" No, they didn't.</p><p>Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"? Yes, they did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'In this case , we did not ask that this site be taken down , only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed, ' said a Microsoft spokeswoman .
" This is total , exquisite bullshit .
The fact is , a DMCA request in this case triggers a site takedown if the owner disagrees with taking down the material.Did MS verbally utter the request , " Will you please take down the site ?
" No , they did n't.Did they press a bright green legal button labelled , " Push here to initiate site takedown process " ?
Yes , they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman.
"This is total, exquisite bullshit.
The fact is, a DMCA request in this case triggers a site takedown if the owner disagrees with taking down the material.Did MS verbally utter the request, "Will you please take down the site?
" No, they didn't.Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"?
Yes, they did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279272</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267099320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i call shenanigans.   do you think if i sent a dmca notification to microsoft.com would go down if i claimed that they were hosting my custom made blank pixel?   no.</p><p>in other interesting trivia, whois microsoft.com is funny at the moment:</p><p>whois microsoft.com</p><p>Whois Server Version 2.0</p><p>Domain names in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains can now be registered<br>with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net<br>for detailed information.</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.IM.ELITE.WANNABE.TOO.WWW.PLUS613.NET<br>
   IP Address: 64.251.18.228<br>
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM<br>
   IP Address: 203.36.226.2<br>
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM<br>
   IP Address: 69.41.185.194<br>
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.DOWNLOAD.MOVIE.ONLINE.ZML2.COM<br>
   IP Address: 64.28.187.63<br>
   Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM<br>
   Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM<br>
   IP Address: 217.107.217.167<br>
   Registrar: DOMAINCONTEXT, INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.domaincontext.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://www.domaincontext.com</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZ.IS.0WNED.AND.HAX0RED.BY.SUB7.NET<br>
   IP Address: 207.44.240.96<br>
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM<br>
   IP Address: 185.3.4.7<br>
   Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE<br>
   Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.SLAPPED.IN.THE.FACE.BY.MY.BLUE.VEINED.SPANNER.NET<br>
   IP Address: 216.127.80.46<br>
   Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.ascio.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.BEATEN.WITH.MY.SPANNER.NET<br>
   IP Address: 216.127.80.46<br>
   Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.ascio.com<br>
   Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WAREZ.AT.TOPLIST.GULLI.COM<br>
   IP Address: 80.190.192.33<br>
   Registrar: EPAG DOMAINSERVICES GMBH<br>
   Whois Server: whois.enterprice.net<br>
   Referral URL: http://www.enterprice.net</p><p>
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.TOTALLY.SUCKS.S3U.NET<br>
   IP Address: 207.208.13.22<br>
   Registrar: ENOM, INC.<br>
   Whois Server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i call shenanigans .
do you think if i sent a dmca notification to microsoft.com would go down if i claimed that they were hosting my custom made blank pixel ?
no.in other interesting trivia , whois microsoft.com is funny at the moment : whois microsoft.comWhois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registeredwith many different competing registrars .
Go to http : //www.internic.netfor detailed information .
Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.IM.ELITE.WANNABE.TOO.WWW.PLUS613.NET IP Address : 64.251.18.228 Registrar : TUCOWS INC . Whois Server : whois.tucows.com Referral URL : http : //domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM IP Address : 203.36.226.2 Registrar : TUCOWS INC . Whois Server : whois.tucows.com Referral URL : http : //domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM IP Address : 69.41.185.194 Registrar : TUCOWS INC . Whois Server : whois.tucows.com Referral URL : http : //domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.DOWNLOAD.MOVIE.ONLINE.ZML2.COM IP Address : 64.28.187.63 Registrar : DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT .
LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server : whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL : http : //www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM IP Address : 217.107.217.167 Registrar : DOMAINCONTEXT , INC . Whois Server : whois.domaincontext.com Referral URL : http : //www.domaincontext.com Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZ.IS.0WNED.AND.HAX0RED.BY.SUB7.NET IP Address : 207.44.240.96 Registrar : TUCOWS INC . Whois Server : whois.tucows.com Referral URL : http : //domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM IP Address : 185.3.4.7 Registrar : MELBOURNE IT , LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE Whois Server : whois.melbourneit.com Referral URL : http : //www.melbourneit.com Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.SLAPPED.IN.THE.FACE.BY.MY.BLUE.VEINED.SPANNER.NET IP Address : 216.127.80.46 Registrar : ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES , INC . Whois Server : whois.ascio.com Referral URL : http : //publicwhois.ascio.com Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.BEATEN.WITH.MY.SPANNER.NET IP Address : 216.127.80.46 Registrar : ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES , INC . Whois Server : whois.ascio.com Referral URL : http : //publicwhois.ascio.com Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.WAREZ.AT.TOPLIST.GULLI.COM IP Address : 80.190.192.33 Registrar : EPAG DOMAINSERVICES GMBH Whois Server : whois.enterprice.net Referral URL : http : //www.enterprice.net Server Name : MICROSOFT.COM.TOTALLY.SUCKS.S3U.NET IP Address : 207.208.13.22 Registrar : ENOM , INC . Whois Server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i call shenanigans.
do you think if i sent a dmca notification to microsoft.com would go down if i claimed that they were hosting my custom made blank pixel?
no.in other interesting trivia, whois microsoft.com is funny at the moment:whois microsoft.comWhois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registeredwith many different competing registrars.
Go to http://www.internic.netfor detailed information.
Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.IM.ELITE.WANNABE.TOO.WWW.PLUS613.NET
   IP Address: 64.251.18.228
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
   IP Address: 203.36.226.2
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
   IP Address: 69.41.185.194
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.DOWNLOAD.MOVIE.ONLINE.ZML2.COM
   IP Address: 64.28.187.63
   Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT.
LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
   Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
   Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
   IP Address: 217.107.217.167
   Registrar: DOMAINCONTEXT, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.domaincontext.com
   Referral URL: http://www.domaincontext.com
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZ.IS.0WNED.AND.HAX0RED.BY.SUB7.NET
   IP Address: 207.44.240.96
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
   Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM
   IP Address: 185.3.4.7
   Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
   Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
   Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.SLAPPED.IN.THE.FACE.BY.MY.BLUE.VEINED.SPANNER.NET
   IP Address: 216.127.80.46
   Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.ascio.com
   Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.BEATEN.WITH.MY.SPANNER.NET
   IP Address: 216.127.80.46
   Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.ascio.com
   Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WAREZ.AT.TOPLIST.GULLI.COM
   IP Address: 80.190.192.33
   Registrar: EPAG DOMAINSERVICES GMBH
   Whois Server: whois.enterprice.net
   Referral URL: http://www.enterprice.net
   Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.TOTALLY.SUCKS.S3U.NET
   IP Address: 207.208.13.22
   Registrar: ENOM, INC.
   Whois Server</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278554</id>
	<title>Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen...</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1267095960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're drunk on the kool-aid if you think microsoft is going through all this to give kids their stolen x-boxes back.  Read the wired article: <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/</a> [wired.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're drunk on the kool-aid if you think microsoft is going through all this to give kids their stolen x-boxes back .
Read the wired article : http : //www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/ [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're drunk on the kool-aid if you think microsoft is going through all this to give kids their stolen x-boxes back.
Read the wired article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/ [wired.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</id>
	<title>That's the DMCA for you...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267092480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The chain of events is nothing newsworthy.

1. Microsoft claims copyright on its internal guide.
2. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown letter... site refuses.
3. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server, server provider decides to down site.

What's newsworthy is that Microsoft is now saying "sorry" and letting the document stay up now. If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chain of events is nothing newsworthy .
1. Microsoft claims copyright on its internal guide .
2. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown letter... site refuses .
3. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider , server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server , server provider decides to down site .
What 's newsworthy is that Microsoft is now saying " sorry " and letting the document stay up now .
If you did n't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does , well , here 's your proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chain of events is nothing newsworthy.
1. Microsoft claims copyright on its internal guide.
2. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown letter... site refuses.
3. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server, server provider decides to down site.
What's newsworthy is that Microsoft is now saying "sorry" and letting the document stay up now.
If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279562</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1267101540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I actually like to see more of these from different companies. Most interestingly, Facebook has a lot personal data. And what about Google? Yahoo?</p><p>

If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).</p></div> </blockquote><p>Other companies policies are also on the site.  And it is good for Microsoft.  That's why they did it; Striesand effect, and then withdraw the objection...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually like to see more of these from different companies .
Most interestingly , Facebook has a lot personal data .
And what about Google ?
Yahoo ? If anything , such openness is good for MS in this case ( even while they do n't seem to agree to it , until now that it 's leaked ) .
Other companies policies are also on the site .
And it is good for Microsoft .
That 's why they did it ; Striesand effect , and then withdraw the objection.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually like to see more of these from different companies.
Most interestingly, Facebook has a lot personal data.
And what about Google?
Yahoo?

If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).
Other companies policies are also on the site.
And it is good for Microsoft.
That's why they did it; Striesand effect, and then withdraw the objection...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090</id>
	<title>Nothing new to see here; same old story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft got caught taking unwarranted action against a well known website. Now they're claiming that they never intended to do that and that the information in question isn't really protected.</p><p>Anyone who believes that this means Microsoft has turned over a new leaf needs to go back to the school of hard knocks and learn about "spin", "doublespeak" and "marketing". If you think that they would back off like this if the general public DID NOT know what transpired then don your pointy hat and go sit in the corner. The history of Microsoft should be well known in these parts and years of bad behavior by that company should provide more than sufficient reason to doubt them now.</p><p>The way it was done - by the domain registrar re-directing their domain name to NULL was not a mistake - it was because a MS "enforcer" decided to teach Cryptome a lesson and used Microsoft's influence with NetSol to make it happen. You don't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff, do you? What's really interesting this time is they got caught with dirty hands - and decided a "whoops, my bad" would make it OK. That wouldn't work if there weren't so many who are ready to argue for the bad guy just because it gives them a soap box to speak from.</p><p>Sure, there's a few Microsoft shills who monitor this site and post / mod accordingly. Their behavior is bad but expected - but the rest of you... Really, read TFA and think about it for a few minutes before you hit that "reply" button. It's not only a good idea, it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft got caught taking unwarranted action against a well known website .
Now they 're claiming that they never intended to do that and that the information in question is n't really protected.Anyone who believes that this means Microsoft has turned over a new leaf needs to go back to the school of hard knocks and learn about " spin " , " doublespeak " and " marketing " .
If you think that they would back off like this if the general public DID NOT know what transpired then don your pointy hat and go sit in the corner .
The history of Microsoft should be well known in these parts and years of bad behavior by that company should provide more than sufficient reason to doubt them now.The way it was done - by the domain registrar re-directing their domain name to NULL was not a mistake - it was because a MS " enforcer " decided to teach Cryptome a lesson and used Microsoft 's influence with NetSol to make it happen .
You do n't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff , do you ?
What 's really interesting this time is they got caught with dirty hands - and decided a " whoops , my bad " would make it OK. That would n't work if there were n't so many who are ready to argue for the bad guy just because it gives them a soap box to speak from.Sure , there 's a few Microsoft shills who monitor this site and post / mod accordingly .
Their behavior is bad but expected - but the rest of you... Really , read TFA and think about it for a few minutes before you hit that " reply " button .
It 's not only a good idea , it 'll also make you a better Slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft got caught taking unwarranted action against a well known website.
Now they're claiming that they never intended to do that and that the information in question isn't really protected.Anyone who believes that this means Microsoft has turned over a new leaf needs to go back to the school of hard knocks and learn about "spin", "doublespeak" and "marketing".
If you think that they would back off like this if the general public DID NOT know what transpired then don your pointy hat and go sit in the corner.
The history of Microsoft should be well known in these parts and years of bad behavior by that company should provide more than sufficient reason to doubt them now.The way it was done - by the domain registrar re-directing their domain name to NULL was not a mistake - it was because a MS "enforcer" decided to teach Cryptome a lesson and used Microsoft's influence with NetSol to make it happen.
You don't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff, do you?
What's really interesting this time is they got caught with dirty hands - and decided a "whoops, my bad" would make it OK. That wouldn't work if there weren't so many who are ready to argue for the bad guy just because it gives them a soap box to speak from.Sure, there's a few Microsoft shills who monitor this site and post / mod accordingly.
Their behavior is bad but expected - but the rest of you... Really, read TFA and think about it for a few minutes before you hit that "reply" button.
It's not only a good idea, it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31284696</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267198080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services, mainly that MS isn't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box, it isn't kept on MS servers. While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Or maybe this "leak" was to make you believe that MS doesn't log everything and keep it around for months. Perhaps they just store the logs on their Danger servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services , mainly that MS is n't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box , it is n't kept on MS servers .
While in contrast , in my understating , for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months .
Or maybe this " leak " was to make you believe that MS does n't log everything and keep it around for months .
Perhaps they just store the logs on their Danger servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services, mainly that MS isn't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box, it isn't kept on MS servers.
While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.
Or maybe this "leak" was to make you believe that MS doesn't log everything and keep it around for months.
Perhaps they just store the logs on their Danger servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278492</id>
	<title>Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge?</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267095720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very interesting that I can generate an informative thread with a post that peaks at +2 and then hits 0.  It's almost like a horde of MS supporters passed through here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very interesting that I can generate an informative thread with a post that peaks at + 2 and then hits 0 .
It 's almost like a horde of MS supporters passed through here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very interesting that I can generate an informative thread with a post that peaks at +2 and then hits 0.
It's almost like a horde of MS supporters passed through here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</id>
	<title>Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267092420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think they've handled this whole situation correctly.</p><p>There's no indication that the document in question was *not* copyright by Microsoft. In this case, the correct legal action is a DMCA, same as if you had a movie up on your site. NetSol is just being a dick, as usual - it's not their responsibility to screw with the domain over the dispute between 2 third-parties unless legally required to (I don't think that's the case here).</p><p>In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.</p><p>I believe them when they said they didn't intend to take Cryptome down. Looks like it was just NetSol being... proactive. So really the only thing they'd be at fault for was sending a DMCA, which is clearly within their rights. They probably have underlings scouring the web and sending DMCAs - so they were probably not delibrately targeted. When it had unintended consequences, they withdrew it.</p><p>I don't think MS is at fault here. I actually think they acted quite exemplary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no fan of Microsoft , but I think they 've handled this whole situation correctly.There 's no indication that the document in question was * not * copyright by Microsoft .
In this case , the correct legal action is a DMCA , same as if you had a movie up on your site .
NetSol is just being a dick , as usual - it 's not their responsibility to screw with the domain over the dispute between 2 third-parties unless legally required to ( I do n't think that 's the case here ) .In any case , when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them , they decided correctly that it was n't worth the fight.I believe them when they said they did n't intend to take Cryptome down .
Looks like it was just NetSol being... proactive. So really the only thing they 'd be at fault for was sending a DMCA , which is clearly within their rights .
They probably have underlings scouring the web and sending DMCAs - so they were probably not delibrately targeted .
When it had unintended consequences , they withdrew it.I do n't think MS is at fault here .
I actually think they acted quite exemplary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think they've handled this whole situation correctly.There's no indication that the document in question was *not* copyright by Microsoft.
In this case, the correct legal action is a DMCA, same as if you had a movie up on your site.
NetSol is just being a dick, as usual - it's not their responsibility to screw with the domain over the dispute between 2 third-parties unless legally required to (I don't think that's the case here).In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.I believe them when they said they didn't intend to take Cryptome down.
Looks like it was just NetSol being... proactive. So really the only thing they'd be at fault for was sending a DMCA, which is clearly within their rights.
They probably have underlings scouring the web and sending DMCAs - so they were probably not delibrately targeted.
When it had unintended consequences, they withdrew it.I don't think MS is at fault here.
I actually think they acted quite exemplary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580</id>
	<title>Who gave Network Solutions a badge?</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267092120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That Network Solutions, Inc. placed a "legal lock" on his domain name strikes me as NSI appointing themselves sheriff.<br><br>We don't need totalitarian internet authorities who "enforce the law" for Microsoft's civil complaints.<br><br>I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions, Inc. over their treatment of cryptome.org.  I will do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Network Solutions , Inc. placed a " legal lock " on his domain name strikes me as NSI appointing themselves sheriff.We do n't need totalitarian internet authorities who " enforce the law " for Microsoft 's civil complaints.I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions , Inc. over their treatment of cryptome.org .
I will do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Network Solutions, Inc. placed a "legal lock" on his domain name strikes me as NSI appointing themselves sheriff.We don't need totalitarian internet authorities who "enforce the law" for Microsoft's civil complaints.I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions, Inc. over their treatment of cryptome.org.
I will do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278876</id>
	<title>Re:That's the DMCA for you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server</p></div></blockquote><p>
The confusion here is that Network Solutions was providing <em>two</em> services.  As a web hosting company (until yesterday didn't even know they are in that business), yes, they have to take down the server to avoid liability.  But as a DNS registrar, they didn't have to do anything. If a web site infringes a copyright, the DNS registrar doesn't <em>need</em> to do anything to stay out of the line of fire.  They're never <em>in</em> the line of fire.   They <em>can</em> blow off DMCA notices.  Now if they're a hosting company too, then ok.  Killing cryptome's website is fine.  The problem is with the 'legal lock' (WTF is that?!) on the name.  That never should have happened and Network Solutions has some explaining to do.
</p><p>
The very name "legal lock" sounds suspicious, like "PATRIOT Act."  It smells like an attempt to legitimize a major fuckup, by handwaving to try to make people think they somehow did the responsible thing or had their hands tied.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider , server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server The confusion here is that Network Solutions was providing two services .
As a web hosting company ( until yesterday did n't even know they are in that business ) , yes , they have to take down the server to avoid liability .
But as a DNS registrar , they did n't have to do anything .
If a web site infringes a copyright , the DNS registrar does n't need to do anything to stay out of the line of fire .
They 're never in the line of fire .
They can blow off DMCA notices .
Now if they 're a hosting company too , then ok. Killing cryptome 's website is fine .
The problem is with the 'legal lock ' ( WTF is that ? !
) on the name .
That never should have happened and Network Solutions has some explaining to do .
The very name " legal lock " sounds suspicious , like " PATRIOT Act .
" It smells like an attempt to legitimize a major fuckup , by handwaving to try to make people think they somehow did the responsible thing or had their hands tied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server
The confusion here is that Network Solutions was providing two services.
As a web hosting company (until yesterday didn't even know they are in that business), yes, they have to take down the server to avoid liability.
But as a DNS registrar, they didn't have to do anything.
If a web site infringes a copyright, the DNS registrar doesn't need to do anything to stay out of the line of fire.
They're never in the line of fire.
They can blow off DMCA notices.
Now if they're a hosting company too, then ok.  Killing cryptome's website is fine.
The problem is with the 'legal lock' (WTF is that?!
) on the name.
That never should have happened and Network Solutions has some explaining to do.
The very name "legal lock" sounds suspicious, like "PATRIOT Act.
"  It smells like an attempt to legitimize a major fuckup, by handwaving to try to make people think they somehow did the responsible thing or had their hands tied.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278642</id>
	<title>We're sorry</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we were shooting bullets, we didn't want anyone to get hurt. Blame the pistol!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we were shooting bullets , we did n't want anyone to get hurt .
Blame the pistol !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we were shooting bullets, we didn't want anyone to get hurt.
Blame the pistol!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281320</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new to see here; same old story</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty good, but you need to spice it up a bit if you want to impress Twitter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty good , but you need to spice it up a bit if you want to impress Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty good, but you need to spice it up a bit if you want to impress Twitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278678</id>
	<title>Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267096440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time)</p></div><p>So... you eventually got a sex change and replaced your wii with a box?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my Wii stolen ( I had no xbox at the time ) So... you eventually got a sex change and replaced your wii with a box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time)So... you eventually got a sex change and replaced your wii with a box?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281172</id>
	<title>Good Time To Move</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1267115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that you're back up it sounds like a good time to move your domain to a more reasonable registrar and hosting company. You have been warned!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that you 're back up it sounds like a good time to move your domain to a more reasonable registrar and hosting company .
You have been warned !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that you're back up it sounds like a good time to move your domain to a more reasonable registrar and hosting company.
You have been warned!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279122</id>
	<title>I'm not up on my data-retention laws</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1267098480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it would appear to me that some of Microsoft's policies, as stated, are potential violations of data retention laws, specifically the timeframe in which they are keeping their records.</p><p>Please correct me if I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it would appear to me that some of Microsoft 's policies , as stated , are potential violations of data retention laws , specifically the timeframe in which they are keeping their records.Please correct me if I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it would appear to me that some of Microsoft's policies, as stated, are potential violations of data retention laws, specifically the timeframe in which they are keeping their records.Please correct me if I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31289282</id>
	<title>Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267215600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;police say "this X-Box, SN#ABC, was stolen on this date", Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox!</p><p>Yes well that sounds good, but such a system could also be abused if, for example, you're a medical marijuana user trying to relieve your arthritis, and the Feds are after you. The last thing you want it Microsoft saying, "Our records show he logged in at L.A. and then San Francisco and then Sacramento in hotel X room Y."</p><p>Please note I consider the outlawing of marijuana (or any other plant) to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Therefore I don't consider users to be criminals because I consider the U.S. Prohibition Law to be null.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; police say " this X-Box , SN # ABC , was stolen on this date " , Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox ! Yes well that sounds good , but such a system could also be abused if , for example , you 're a medical marijuana user trying to relieve your arthritis , and the Feds are after you .
The last thing you want it Microsoft saying , " Our records show he logged in at L.A. and then San Francisco and then Sacramento in hotel X room Y .
" Please note I consider the outlawing of marijuana ( or any other plant ) to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights .
Therefore I do n't consider users to be criminals because I consider the U.S. Prohibition Law to be null .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;police say "this X-Box, SN#ABC, was stolen on this date", Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox!Yes well that sounds good, but such a system could also be abused if, for example, you're a medical marijuana user trying to relieve your arthritis, and the Feds are after you.
The last thing you want it Microsoft saying, "Our records show he logged in at L.A. and then San Francisco and then Sacramento in hotel X room Y.
"Please note I consider the outlawing of marijuana (or any other plant) to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
Therefore I don't consider users to be criminals because I consider the U.S. Prohibition Law to be null.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278490</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think MS is at fault here. I actually think they acted quite exemplary.</p></div><p>I wonder if Network Solutions feels the same way, now that they're left to slowly twist in the wind... ostensibly, for doing Microsoft's bidding.</p><p>Watch how quickly and minimally they handle DMCA requests from Microsoft in the future, and you'll have a good idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think MS is at fault here .
I actually think they acted quite exemplary.I wonder if Network Solutions feels the same way , now that they 're left to slowly twist in the wind... ostensibly , for doing Microsoft 's bidding.Watch how quickly and minimally they handle DMCA requests from Microsoft in the future , and you 'll have a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think MS is at fault here.
I actually think they acted quite exemplary.I wonder if Network Solutions feels the same way, now that they're left to slowly twist in the wind... ostensibly, for doing Microsoft's bidding.Watch how quickly and minimally they handle DMCA requests from Microsoft in the future, and you'll have a good idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278982</id>
	<title>Closing Door After the Horse Has Left the Barn</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1267097760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The document had already gotten out into the wild. That it was restricted only made it more popular and there were plenty of places to get it besides Cryptome. All MS was doing was generating more bad publicity for itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The document had already gotten out into the wild .
That it was restricted only made it more popular and there were plenty of places to get it besides Cryptome .
All MS was doing was generating more bad publicity for itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The document had already gotten out into the wild.
That it was restricted only made it more popular and there were plenty of places to get it besides Cryptome.
All MS was doing was generating more bad publicity for itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279134</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://cryptome.org/" title="cryptome.org">http://cryptome.org/</a> [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.</p><p>Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.</p></div><p>Hello, Ms Streisand, is that you? I have Mike Masnick on the phone. He says it's important.<br> <br>

If you don't get it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">click here</a> [wikipedia.org] and join those that do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //cryptome.org/ [ cryptome.org ] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo , facebook , paypal , myspace , aol , skype , et al.Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.Hello , Ms Streisand , is that you ?
I have Mike Masnick on the phone .
He says it 's important .
If you do n't get it click here [ wikipedia.org ] and join those that do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://cryptome.org/ [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.Hello, Ms Streisand, is that you?
I have Mike Masnick on the phone.
He says it's important.
If you don't get it click here [wikipedia.org] and join those that do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280190</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1267105860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They feared the Streisand effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They feared the Streisand effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They feared the Streisand effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277722</id>
	<title>Really, is anyone surprised</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1267092840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by the data that they can gather?  Heck, the users give the data to them.  All of it is data that would be gathered by any provider of similar services.</p><p>The only surprise is that they got worked up by the document getting out, and invoked the Streisand Effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by the data that they can gather ?
Heck , the users give the data to them .
All of it is data that would be gathered by any provider of similar services.The only surprise is that they got worked up by the document getting out , and invoked the Streisand Effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the data that they can gather?
Heck, the users give the data to them.
All of it is data that would be gathered by any provider of similar services.The only surprise is that they got worked up by the document getting out, and invoked the Streisand Effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277838</id>
	<title>Re:Hell is getting cold`</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft finally has the competition it needs in areas outside of their "core business PC" market to make them need to have a decent image.</p><p>Specifically they want to be competitive in search, social networking, on-line gaming and other areas that kinda-sorta require the trust of their end users.  If your end users don't trust you, and they have options, they'll just go somewhere else.  This story was making it look like Microsoft had something to hide with this law enforcement guide (which it actually doesn't look like they did - it seems like a straight-forward "here's what you need to provide if the cops come with a court order" document) and it was making it look like Microsoft was incompetent (Streisand effect).  Neither of which engender "trust" in the public.</p><p>Microsoft is already fighting an uphill battle on the trust issue - years of being the biggest monopolistic bully on the block has a tendency to erode trust in your company and make people root for a David to knock you down a peg or three.  People have been rooting against Microsoft for decades and while it seems like for a good long time MS just didn't care what other people thought about them, it's beginning to look like they're realizing that they NEED to care what people think of them.  For real this time, and not just through a stupid marketing campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft finally has the competition it needs in areas outside of their " core business PC " market to make them need to have a decent image.Specifically they want to be competitive in search , social networking , on-line gaming and other areas that kinda-sorta require the trust of their end users .
If your end users do n't trust you , and they have options , they 'll just go somewhere else .
This story was making it look like Microsoft had something to hide with this law enforcement guide ( which it actually does n't look like they did - it seems like a straight-forward " here 's what you need to provide if the cops come with a court order " document ) and it was making it look like Microsoft was incompetent ( Streisand effect ) .
Neither of which engender " trust " in the public.Microsoft is already fighting an uphill battle on the trust issue - years of being the biggest monopolistic bully on the block has a tendency to erode trust in your company and make people root for a David to knock you down a peg or three .
People have been rooting against Microsoft for decades and while it seems like for a good long time MS just did n't care what other people thought about them , it 's beginning to look like they 're realizing that they NEED to care what people think of them .
For real this time , and not just through a stupid marketing campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft finally has the competition it needs in areas outside of their "core business PC" market to make them need to have a decent image.Specifically they want to be competitive in search, social networking, on-line gaming and other areas that kinda-sorta require the trust of their end users.
If your end users don't trust you, and they have options, they'll just go somewhere else.
This story was making it look like Microsoft had something to hide with this law enforcement guide (which it actually doesn't look like they did - it seems like a straight-forward "here's what you need to provide if the cops come with a court order" document) and it was making it look like Microsoft was incompetent (Streisand effect).
Neither of which engender "trust" in the public.Microsoft is already fighting an uphill battle on the trust issue - years of being the biggest monopolistic bully on the block has a tendency to erode trust in your company and make people root for a David to knock you down a peg or three.
People have been rooting against Microsoft for decades and while it seems like for a good long time MS just didn't care what other people thought about them, it's beginning to look like they're realizing that they NEED to care what people think of them.
For real this time, and not just through a stupid marketing campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279890</id>
	<title>Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what else would be cool?  Implant GPS trackers on everyone, along with sticking a monitoring camera on everyone's shoulder.  If someone managed to steal anything then the police could simply perform a series of SELECT statements on the government's citizen life database and get a list of everyone who was in the immediate premises when the robbery occurred. Then some apparachik  could monitor the videos captured by the suspect's shoulder-mounted videos and know exactly who stole the stuff.</p><p>Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time), this would have been very cool to have, since Nintendo would do F-all when asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what else would be cool ?
Implant GPS trackers on everyone , along with sticking a monitoring camera on everyone 's shoulder .
If someone managed to steal anything then the police could simply perform a series of SELECT statements on the government 's citizen life database and get a list of everyone who was in the immediate premises when the robbery occurred .
Then some apparachik could monitor the videos captured by the suspect 's shoulder-mounted videos and know exactly who stole the stuff.Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen ( I had no xbox at the time ) , this would have been very cool to have , since Nintendo would do F-all when asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what else would be cool?
Implant GPS trackers on everyone, along with sticking a monitoring camera on everyone's shoulder.
If someone managed to steal anything then the police could simply perform a series of SELECT statements on the government's citizen life database and get a list of everyone who was in the immediate premises when the robbery occurred.
Then some apparachik  could monitor the videos captured by the suspect's shoulder-mounted videos and know exactly who stole the stuff.Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time), this would have been very cool to have, since Nintendo would do F-all when asked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279200</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that if they have "underlings scouring the web and sending DMCA's" without those notices being approved by the higher-ups on an individual basis, then they're still being bad.</p><p>The underlings will no doubt do their job to the best of their ability, i.e. find as many copyright infringements as possible, to justify their employment.  Sometimes those will be legitimate infringements, sometimes they'll be in a legal gray area, and sometimes they'll just be legitimate complaints or parodies about Microsoft.</p><p>And Microsoft knows this.  As long as they can play the "it was an honest mistake" card, they can get out of taking responsibility for silencing the opposition, when in reality they've set up a system purposely designed to silence the opposition.</p><p>Of course, I don't blame Microsoft; they're just doing what they do best - use everything in their power to crush their enemies and rivals.  I blame the DMCA, which is (no doubt intentionally) crafted to allow the copyright holders to punish the so-called infringers without due process and without repercussions if they make these "honest mistakes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that if they have " underlings scouring the web and sending DMCA 's " without those notices being approved by the higher-ups on an individual basis , then they 're still being bad.The underlings will no doubt do their job to the best of their ability , i.e .
find as many copyright infringements as possible , to justify their employment .
Sometimes those will be legitimate infringements , sometimes they 'll be in a legal gray area , and sometimes they 'll just be legitimate complaints or parodies about Microsoft.And Microsoft knows this .
As long as they can play the " it was an honest mistake " card , they can get out of taking responsibility for silencing the opposition , when in reality they 've set up a system purposely designed to silence the opposition.Of course , I do n't blame Microsoft ; they 're just doing what they do best - use everything in their power to crush their enemies and rivals .
I blame the DMCA , which is ( no doubt intentionally ) crafted to allow the copyright holders to punish the so-called infringers without due process and without repercussions if they make these " honest mistakes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that if they have "underlings scouring the web and sending DMCA's" without those notices being approved by the higher-ups on an individual basis, then they're still being bad.The underlings will no doubt do their job to the best of their ability, i.e.
find as many copyright infringements as possible, to justify their employment.
Sometimes those will be legitimate infringements, sometimes they'll be in a legal gray area, and sometimes they'll just be legitimate complaints or parodies about Microsoft.And Microsoft knows this.
As long as they can play the "it was an honest mistake" card, they can get out of taking responsibility for silencing the opposition, when in reality they've set up a system purposely designed to silence the opposition.Of course, I don't blame Microsoft; they're just doing what they do best - use everything in their power to crush their enemies and rivals.
I blame the DMCA, which is (no doubt intentionally) crafted to allow the copyright holders to punish the so-called infringers without due process and without repercussions if they make these "honest mistakes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277952</id>
	<title>Re:That's the DMCA for you...</title>
	<author>ashridah</author>
	<datestamp>1267093740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling this a 'back door' is a bit disengenuous. That's data that Microsoft has collected about you, through your use of their services. If a law enforcement agency has the appropriate request (supoena or warrant, etc), then it's either "provide a way for them to collect it, in such a way that protects every other user of the service from undue scrutiny" or "let them walk in and take the servers, and screw everyone"</p><p>You're making a big mistake if you think that law enforcement agents won't do the latter if you refuse to give them the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling this a 'back door ' is a bit disengenuous .
That 's data that Microsoft has collected about you , through your use of their services .
If a law enforcement agency has the appropriate request ( supoena or warrant , etc ) , then it 's either " provide a way for them to collect it , in such a way that protects every other user of the service from undue scrutiny " or " let them walk in and take the servers , and screw everyone " You 're making a big mistake if you think that law enforcement agents wo n't do the latter if you refuse to give them the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling this a 'back door' is a bit disengenuous.
That's data that Microsoft has collected about you, through your use of their services.
If a law enforcement agency has the appropriate request (supoena or warrant, etc), then it's either "provide a way for them to collect it, in such a way that protects every other user of the service from undue scrutiny" or "let them walk in and take the servers, and screw everyone"You're making a big mistake if you think that law enforcement agents won't do the latter if you refuse to give them the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282332</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>mSparks43</author>
	<datestamp>1267215780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS certainly does get the Streisand effect.<br>
What better way to publish a fake privacy document. "Don't store your messenger conversations" yeah, right, what's this cable for then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS certainly does get the Streisand effect .
What better way to publish a fake privacy document .
" Do n't store your messenger conversations " yeah , right , what 's this cable for then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS certainly does get the Streisand effect.
What better way to publish a fake privacy document.
"Don't store your messenger conversations" yeah, right, what's this cable for then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277928</id>
	<title>Re:That's the DMCA for you...</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1267093680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.</i></p><p>Actually I would say that the documents indicate almost the opposite.</p><p>They'll give you information that MS has on the servers, but not information that's just on your XBox. To wit: 'Be aware that users may also store e-mail content on their computer's hard drive. Microsoft will not be able to disclose e-mail content stored on a user's computer --- only e-mail content stored on Microsoft's e-mail servers.' In other words, there <i>isn't</i> a backdoor onto the actual XBox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you did n't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does , well , here 's your proof.Actually I would say that the documents indicate almost the opposite.They 'll give you information that MS has on the servers , but not information that 's just on your XBox .
To wit : 'Be aware that users may also store e-mail content on their computer 's hard drive .
Microsoft will not be able to disclose e-mail content stored on a user 's computer --- only e-mail content stored on Microsoft 's e-mail servers .
' In other words , there is n't a backdoor onto the actual XBox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.Actually I would say that the documents indicate almost the opposite.They'll give you information that MS has on the servers, but not information that's just on your XBox.
To wit: 'Be aware that users may also store e-mail content on their computer's hard drive.
Microsoft will not be able to disclose e-mail content stored on a user's computer --- only e-mail content stored on Microsoft's e-mail servers.
' In other words, there isn't a backdoor onto the actual XBox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31283506</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267188840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.</p></div><p>Link? Or are your understatings (sic) to be interpreted as facts? Google these days is perennially cast as the evil hoarder of personal information, which may well be accurate. It would be nice if we could form a judgment based on facts rather than rumors though.</p><p>For the record, I wouldn't trust Google <i>or</i> Microsoft with personal data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While in contrast , in my understating , for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.Link ?
Or are your understatings ( sic ) to be interpreted as facts ?
Google these days is perennially cast as the evil hoarder of personal information , which may well be accurate .
It would be nice if we could form a judgment based on facts rather than rumors though.For the record , I would n't trust Google or Microsoft with personal data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.Link?
Or are your understatings (sic) to be interpreted as facts?
Google these days is perennially cast as the evil hoarder of personal information, which may well be accurate.
It would be nice if we could form a judgment based on facts rather than rumors though.For the record, I wouldn't trust Google or Microsoft with personal data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279894</id>
	<title>Compliance to American Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267103580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Microsoft has prepared a document which details how they will comply with American Law when requested to do so by the appropriate Authorities. I think you will find this is not a Microsoft issue but a legal compliance issue that affects all businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Microsoft has prepared a document which details how they will comply with American Law when requested to do so by the appropriate Authorities .
I think you will find this is not a Microsoft issue but a legal compliance issue that affects all businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Microsoft has prepared a document which details how they will comply with American Law when requested to do so by the appropriate Authorities.
I think you will find this is not a Microsoft issue but a legal compliance issue that affects all businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278654</id>
	<title>Linking to Computerworld again?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1267096380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't we just established that Computerworld and Infoworld are a bunch of trolls who will do anything for pageviews? Why is Slashdot linking to them again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we just established that Computerworld and Infoworld are a bunch of trolls who will do anything for pageviews ?
Why is Slashdot linking to them again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we just established that Computerworld and Infoworld are a bunch of trolls who will do anything for pageviews?
Why is Slashdot linking to them again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279578</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267101600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).</p></div><p>The Microsoft documents got leaked (by who? hmmmm), they look pretty favorable and make Google + associated sites look bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but they were leaked out on a nowhere site so didn't get good publicity. Lo and behold, Microsoft throws a DMCA takedown notice and the Streisand effect turns the leak into a flood.</p><p>But I'm probably just a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The leak coming almost immediately after MS &amp; Yahoo got such great publicity for their privacy policies is most likely a co-incidence. And I'm sure that out of the thousands of employees at MS, there's not a single one who would be smart enough to come up with this marketing ploy... Right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , such openness is good for MS in this case ( even while they do n't seem to agree to it , until now that it 's leaked ) .The Microsoft documents got leaked ( by who ?
hmmmm ) , they look pretty favorable and make Google + associated sites look bad ... but they were leaked out on a nowhere site so did n't get good publicity .
Lo and behold , Microsoft throws a DMCA takedown notice and the Streisand effect turns the leak into a flood.But I 'm probably just a paranoid conspiracy theorist .
The leak coming almost immediately after MS &amp; Yahoo got such great publicity for their privacy policies is most likely a co-incidence .
And I 'm sure that out of the thousands of employees at MS , there 's not a single one who would be smart enough to come up with this marketing ploy... Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).The Microsoft documents got leaked (by who?
hmmmm), they look pretty favorable and make Google + associated sites look bad ... but they were leaked out on a nowhere site so didn't get good publicity.
Lo and behold, Microsoft throws a DMCA takedown notice and the Streisand effect turns the leak into a flood.But I'm probably just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
The leak coming almost immediately after MS &amp; Yahoo got such great publicity for their privacy policies is most likely a co-incidence.
And I'm sure that out of the thousands of employees at MS, there's not a single one who would be smart enough to come up with this marketing ploy... Right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</id>
	<title>Openness</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267091460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I completely agree that using DMCA to pull of the site is an asshole move, the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services, mainly that MS isn't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box, it isn't kept on MS servers. While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.</p><p>I actually like to see more of these from different companies. Most interestingly, Facebook has <i>a lot</i> personal data. And what about Google? Yahoo?</p><p>If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I completely agree that using DMCA to pull of the site is an asshole move , the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services , mainly that MS is n't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box , it is n't kept on MS servers .
While in contrast , in my understating , for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.I actually like to see more of these from different companies .
Most interestingly , Facebook has a lot personal data .
And what about Google ?
Yahoo ? If anything , such openness is good for MS in this case ( even while they do n't seem to agree to it , until now that it 's leaked ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I completely agree that using DMCA to pull of the site is an asshole move, the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services, mainly that MS isn't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box, it isn't kept on MS servers.
While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.I actually like to see more of these from different companies.
Most interestingly, Facebook has a lot personal data.
And what about Google?
Yahoo?If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280830</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>davvr6</author>
	<datestamp>1267111920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm having visions of The Stepford Wives here.
After an initial tussle everything becomes Ok.
Weird!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having visions of The Stepford Wives here .
After an initial tussle everything becomes Ok . Weird !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having visions of The Stepford Wives here.
After an initial tussle everything becomes Ok.
Weird!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31290306</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new to see here; same old story</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1267177440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and used Microsoft's influence with NetSol to make it happen. You don't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff, do you?</p></div><p>Actually that's <em>precisely</em> what's so troubling about this incident.  If NetSol <em>is</em> regularly shutting down and locking domains in response to DMCA notices, we wouldn't necessarily know about it until it happens to a high-profile site like Cryptome.  I don't want my own site to be one of the ones that silently disappears.</p><p>I've only ever received one DMCA takedown notice.  I decided it really wasn't worth fighting over (and certainly not worth paying for counsel), so I took down that site.  Probably a good idea anyway.  But if the same thing should happen for something that's actually important, is this what I can expect if I refuse to take it down?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and used Microsoft 's influence with NetSol to make it happen .
You do n't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff , do you ? Actually that 's precisely what 's so troubling about this incident .
If NetSol is regularly shutting down and locking domains in response to DMCA notices , we would n't necessarily know about it until it happens to a high-profile site like Cryptome .
I do n't want my own site to be one of the ones that silently disappears.I 've only ever received one DMCA takedown notice .
I decided it really was n't worth fighting over ( and certainly not worth paying for counsel ) , so I took down that site .
Probably a good idea anyway .
But if the same thing should happen for something that 's actually important , is this what I can expect if I refuse to take it down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and used Microsoft's influence with NetSol to make it happen.
You don't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff, do you?Actually that's precisely what's so troubling about this incident.
If NetSol is regularly shutting down and locking domains in response to DMCA notices, we wouldn't necessarily know about it until it happens to a high-profile site like Cryptome.
I don't want my own site to be one of the ones that silently disappears.I've only ever received one DMCA takedown notice.
I decided it really wasn't worth fighting over (and certainly not worth paying for counsel), so I took down that site.
Probably a good idea anyway.
But if the same thing should happen for something that's actually important, is this what I can expect if I refuse to take it down?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544</id>
	<title>Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1267091880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing thats implied is that if the police say "this X-Box, SN#ABC, was stolen on this date", Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox!</p><p>Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time), this would have been very cool to have, since Nintendo would do F-all when asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing thats implied is that if the police say " this X-Box , SN # ABC , was stolen on this date " , Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox ! Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen ( I had no xbox at the time ) , this would have been very cool to have , since Nintendo would do F-all when asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing thats implied is that if the police say "this X-Box, SN#ABC, was stolen on this date", Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox!Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time), this would have been very cool to have, since Nintendo would do F-all when asked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278714</id>
	<title>I don't trust that document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 10 years ago a colleague of mine found a reproducible way to run commands as administrator on any windows machine that enabled shares or IIS.   He provided Microsoft with full details on how to do it.  Then he was raided by the Feds 2 days later, as he was apparently a "dangerous hacker".  He didn't even let us know how he did it though - just Microsoft.  Fortunately his Dad was a senior policeman, and knew the right people (lawyers) to get some sense in the situation.  Microsoft is not to be trusted in it's dealings with the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 10 years ago a colleague of mine found a reproducible way to run commands as administrator on any windows machine that enabled shares or IIS .
He provided Microsoft with full details on how to do it .
Then he was raided by the Feds 2 days later , as he was apparently a " dangerous hacker " .
He did n't even let us know how he did it though - just Microsoft .
Fortunately his Dad was a senior policeman , and knew the right people ( lawyers ) to get some sense in the situation .
Microsoft is not to be trusted in it 's dealings with the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 10 years ago a colleague of mine found a reproducible way to run commands as administrator on any windows machine that enabled shares or IIS.
He provided Microsoft with full details on how to do it.
Then he was raided by the Feds 2 days later, as he was apparently a "dangerous hacker".
He didn't even let us know how he did it though - just Microsoft.
Fortunately his Dad was a senior policeman, and knew the right people (lawyers) to get some sense in the situation.
Microsoft is not to be trusted in it's dealings with the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281288</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new to see here; same old story</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1267116540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.</p></div><p>What exactly is <i>that</i> supposed to mean?</p><p>I'm not interested in being a "slashdotter," I'm fine as me, thank you very much. I don't follow a creed but my own. I don't march to anybody's drumming but mine. And despite my presence here, I certainly don't associate myself with a non-existent entity in order to feel accepted.</p><p>And I have read the relevant texts and made a judgment call that Microsoft is most likely not at fault. Even if say, somebody within MS had put pressure on NetSol to lock the domain, the fact that 1) NetSol complied even if they weren't legally obligated to do so and 2) Microsoft is apologizing for it puts the blame for this fiasco squarely on NetSol, and the burden of proof of innocence on their shoulders.</p><p>Not everything is black and white. Microsoft is not always evil, and Google's actions aren't always not evil. Apple is not always the underdog, and a POSIX-compliant operating system isn't always the best solution. It would do you well to recognize this lest you fall into the very same trap of blind devotion that you're so vehement about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 'll also make you a better Slashdotter.What exactly is that supposed to mean ? I 'm not interested in being a " slashdotter , " I 'm fine as me , thank you very much .
I do n't follow a creed but my own .
I do n't march to anybody 's drumming but mine .
And despite my presence here , I certainly do n't associate myself with a non-existent entity in order to feel accepted.And I have read the relevant texts and made a judgment call that Microsoft is most likely not at fault .
Even if say , somebody within MS had put pressure on NetSol to lock the domain , the fact that 1 ) NetSol complied even if they were n't legally obligated to do so and 2 ) Microsoft is apologizing for it puts the blame for this fiasco squarely on NetSol , and the burden of proof of innocence on their shoulders.Not everything is black and white .
Microsoft is not always evil , and Google 's actions are n't always not evil .
Apple is not always the underdog , and a POSIX-compliant operating system is n't always the best solution .
It would do you well to recognize this lest you fall into the very same trap of blind devotion that you 're so vehement about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.What exactly is that supposed to mean?I'm not interested in being a "slashdotter," I'm fine as me, thank you very much.
I don't follow a creed but my own.
I don't march to anybody's drumming but mine.
And despite my presence here, I certainly don't associate myself with a non-existent entity in order to feel accepted.And I have read the relevant texts and made a judgment call that Microsoft is most likely not at fault.
Even if say, somebody within MS had put pressure on NetSol to lock the domain, the fact that 1) NetSol complied even if they weren't legally obligated to do so and 2) Microsoft is apologizing for it puts the blame for this fiasco squarely on NetSol, and the burden of proof of innocence on their shoulders.Not everything is black and white.
Microsoft is not always evil, and Google's actions aren't always not evil.
Apple is not always the underdog, and a POSIX-compliant operating system isn't always the best solution.
It would do you well to recognize this lest you fall into the very same trap of blind devotion that you're so vehement about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278102</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Nukenbar</author>
	<datestamp>1267094340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering just about every big internet company, heck company, has a law enforcement guide so law enforcement knows who to call in emergencies (like kidnappings) or format subpoena and search warrants for more routine matters, it seems silly to single out Microsoft for this.  No company wants to have their law enforcement procedure out in the open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering just about every big internet company , heck company , has a law enforcement guide so law enforcement knows who to call in emergencies ( like kidnappings ) or format subpoena and search warrants for more routine matters , it seems silly to single out Microsoft for this .
No company wants to have their law enforcement procedure out in the open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering just about every big internet company, heck company, has a law enforcement guide so law enforcement knows who to call in emergencies (like kidnappings) or format subpoena and search warrants for more routine matters, it seems silly to single out Microsoft for this.
No company wants to have their law enforcement procedure out in the open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277828</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>malloc</author>
	<datestamp>1267093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think MS is at fault here.</p></div><p>Perhaps not at fault (though when PR says "we didn't do anything" you never know if there was a nudge, nudge, "if you want our business I think you know what we want" message to NetSol).  Regardless, NetSol sure is at fault!</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually think they acted quite exemplary.</p></div><p>Whoah!  You're saying that it is <b>exemplary</b> for a company to actively hide from users the steps it will go through to give personally identifying information about those users to law enforcement?  This is only "exemplary" as an example of what <b>not</b> to do.  One of John Young's points was that there isn't a legitimate reason to hide this information from users; many other companies do not hide this information, and neither should Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think MS is at fault here.Perhaps not at fault ( though when PR says " we did n't do anything " you never know if there was a nudge , nudge , " if you want our business I think you know what we want " message to NetSol ) .
Regardless , NetSol sure is at fault !
  I actually think they acted quite exemplary.Whoah !
You 're saying that it is exemplary for a company to actively hide from users the steps it will go through to give personally identifying information about those users to law enforcement ?
This is only " exemplary " as an example of what not to do .
One of John Young 's points was that there is n't a legitimate reason to hide this information from users ; many other companies do not hide this information , and neither should Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think MS is at fault here.Perhaps not at fault (though when PR says "we didn't do anything" you never know if there was a nudge, nudge, "if you want our business I think you know what we want" message to NetSol).
Regardless, NetSol sure is at fault!
  I actually think they acted quite exemplary.Whoah!
You're saying that it is exemplary for a company to actively hide from users the steps it will go through to give personally identifying information about those users to law enforcement?
This is only "exemplary" as an example of what not to do.
One of John Young's points was that there isn't a legitimate reason to hide this information from users; many other companies do not hide this information, and neither should Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278154</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so they say...</htmltext>
<tokenext>so they say.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so they say...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277710</id>
	<title>All Service Providers Should Have A Clear Policy</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1267092780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This stuff shouldn't be shocking to anyone: By law, they will reveal certain things about online services when requested.  The problem should be that they don't want you to know what they are forced to give up which seems to be the wrong stance.  These services should be function like a bank safety deposit box: Although private, it isn't legally sacrosanct and will be opened by third parties for inspection in certain circumstances.</p><p>If nothing else, all of these online services to have a general policy about this as well.  If I suddenly croak, who gets access to stuff I stored out there online?  Putting the password and other access information in a vault somewhere isn't reliable or sane.  I may even state it in my will that I want my immediate family to take ownership of all of my online information but I have no idea how to compel Microsoft or Google or whatever to release these accounts to someone else.  This seems like one of those areas all service providers should be better at defining instead of hiding the detail from us in the legalese of the EULA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This stuff should n't be shocking to anyone : By law , they will reveal certain things about online services when requested .
The problem should be that they do n't want you to know what they are forced to give up which seems to be the wrong stance .
These services should be function like a bank safety deposit box : Although private , it is n't legally sacrosanct and will be opened by third parties for inspection in certain circumstances.If nothing else , all of these online services to have a general policy about this as well .
If I suddenly croak , who gets access to stuff I stored out there online ?
Putting the password and other access information in a vault somewhere is n't reliable or sane .
I may even state it in my will that I want my immediate family to take ownership of all of my online information but I have no idea how to compel Microsoft or Google or whatever to release these accounts to someone else .
This seems like one of those areas all service providers should be better at defining instead of hiding the detail from us in the legalese of the EULA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This stuff shouldn't be shocking to anyone: By law, they will reveal certain things about online services when requested.
The problem should be that they don't want you to know what they are forced to give up which seems to be the wrong stance.
These services should be function like a bank safety deposit box: Although private, it isn't legally sacrosanct and will be opened by third parties for inspection in certain circumstances.If nothing else, all of these online services to have a general policy about this as well.
If I suddenly croak, who gets access to stuff I stored out there online?
Putting the password and other access information in a vault somewhere isn't reliable or sane.
I may even state it in my will that I want my immediate family to take ownership of all of my online information but I have no idea how to compel Microsoft or Google or whatever to release these accounts to someone else.
This seems like one of those areas all service providers should be better at defining instead of hiding the detail from us in the legalese of the EULA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278004</id>
	<title>copyright would not apply to a paraphrased version</title>
	<author>anwyn</author>
	<datestamp>1267093980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not know if the posting document would be covered by fair use or not. But copyright law does not protect facts or ideas, only the particular expression of ideas. It seems to me that a paraphrased version would be perfectly legal. This makes copyright law a poor vehicle to enforce secrecy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not know if the posting document would be covered by fair use or not .
But copyright law does not protect facts or ideas , only the particular expression of ideas .
It seems to me that a paraphrased version would be perfectly legal .
This makes copyright law a poor vehicle to enforce secrecy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not know if the posting document would be covered by fair use or not.
But copyright law does not protect facts or ideas, only the particular expression of ideas.
It seems to me that a paraphrased version would be perfectly legal.
This makes copyright law a poor vehicle to enforce secrecy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278018</id>
	<title>User satisfaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On another news, Microsoft never intended to make an OS that made their users miserable. A spokesman from Microsoft said: "Ah, that did happen, we are sorry and maybe will will fix that in the next release."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On another news , Microsoft never intended to make an OS that made their users miserable .
A spokesman from Microsoft said : " Ah , that did happen , we are sorry and maybe will will fix that in the next release .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On another news, Microsoft never intended to make an OS that made their users miserable.
A spokesman from Microsoft said: "Ah, that did happen, we are sorry and maybe will will fix that in the next release.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277636</id>
	<title>"legal lock" is way more than taking down the site</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267092420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMCA takedowns follow a very clear an explicit process on what providers have<br>to do and how... as I understand it, "locking out" the domain at the registrar<br>level is far beyond both the spirit and the letter of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMCA takedowns follow a very clear an explicit process on what providers haveto do and how... as I understand it , " locking out " the domain at the registrarlevel is far beyond both the spirit and the letter of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMCA takedowns follow a very clear an explicit process on what providers haveto do and how... as I understand it, "locking out" the domain at the registrarlevel is far beyond both the spirit and the letter of the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279692</id>
	<title>Re:Fun to hate on MS but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267102440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really think it coincidence that Microsoft and their partner(s) websites had their privacy policies 'leaked' at the same time? And just a short time after Google got such bad press because their privacy policies looked poor in relation to the MS &amp; Yahoo policies? The folks at Microsoft are dreaming up ways to get you to write such reasoned posts about them.</p><p>You're being handled by the MS marketing team, and this is exactly what they'd hoped to achieve. Positive posts about MS on probably the most popular anti-MS tech site on the web.</p><p>To think that the timing of the leak, the correlation of sites with Microsoft business, the leak sink being US based, the sending of the DMCA notice and the over-reaction of NetSol are all co-incidence is naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think it coincidence that Microsoft and their partner ( s ) websites had their privacy policies 'leaked ' at the same time ?
And just a short time after Google got such bad press because their privacy policies looked poor in relation to the MS &amp; Yahoo policies ?
The folks at Microsoft are dreaming up ways to get you to write such reasoned posts about them.You 're being handled by the MS marketing team , and this is exactly what they 'd hoped to achieve .
Positive posts about MS on probably the most popular anti-MS tech site on the web.To think that the timing of the leak , the correlation of sites with Microsoft business , the leak sink being US based , the sending of the DMCA notice and the over-reaction of NetSol are all co-incidence is naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think it coincidence that Microsoft and their partner(s) websites had their privacy policies 'leaked' at the same time?
And just a short time after Google got such bad press because their privacy policies looked poor in relation to the MS &amp; Yahoo policies?
The folks at Microsoft are dreaming up ways to get you to write such reasoned posts about them.You're being handled by the MS marketing team, and this is exactly what they'd hoped to achieve.
Positive posts about MS on probably the most popular anti-MS tech site on the web.To think that the timing of the leak, the correlation of sites with Microsoft business, the leak sink being US based, the sending of the DMCA notice and the over-reaction of NetSol are all co-incidence is naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279140</id>
	<title>Re:Hell is getting cold`</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1267098600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>But it's acceptable, since the memo was copyrighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.But it 's acceptable , since the memo was copyrighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.But it's acceptable, since the memo was copyrighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://cryptome.org/" title="cryptome.org">http://cryptome.org/</a> [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.</p><p>Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //cryptome.org/ [ cryptome.org ] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo , facebook , paypal , myspace , aol , skype , et al.Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://cryptome.org/ [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280168</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267105740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft story... sopssa first post again.  It's almost like you get paid to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft story... sopssa first post again .
It 's almost like you get paid to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft story... sopssa first post again.
It's almost like you get paid to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282184</id>
	<title>Re:Analysis of Statement</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"? Yes, they did.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, they didn't.  Cryptome pushed the bright red "take my site down" button when they refused to comply with a legal DMCA request.  The choice and decision was theirs, not Microsoft's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they press a bright green legal button labelled , " Push here to initiate site takedown process " ?
Yes , they did.No , they did n't .
Cryptome pushed the bright red " take my site down " button when they refused to comply with a legal DMCA request .
The choice and decision was theirs , not Microsoft 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"?
Yes, they did.No, they didn't.
Cryptome pushed the bright red "take my site down" button when they refused to comply with a legal DMCA request.
The choice and decision was theirs, not Microsoft's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279910</id>
	<title>Re:Analysis of Statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267103640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong, dead wrong, and you haven't read the law. Unfortunately, you got modded up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong , dead wrong , and you have n't read the law .
Unfortunately , you got modded up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong, dead wrong, and you haven't read the law.
Unfortunately, you got modded up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280008</id>
	<title>Re:Openness</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1267104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.</p></div><p>All MS said is that law enforcement can't have e-mail that isn't active in your account.<br>That isn't the same thing as "we delete everything".<br>I'm not sure <i>any</i> large e-mail provider can promise that your deleted e-mails are instantly deleted from all backups/mirrors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While in contrast , in my understating , for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.All MS said is that law enforcement ca n't have e-mail that is n't active in your account.That is n't the same thing as " we delete everything " .I 'm not sure any large e-mail provider can promise that your deleted e-mails are instantly deleted from all backups/mirrors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.All MS said is that law enforcement can't have e-mail that isn't active in your account.That isn't the same thing as "we delete everything".I'm not sure any large e-mail provider can promise that your deleted e-mails are instantly deleted from all backups/mirrors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279374</id>
	<title>Re:I don't trust that document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>[citation needed]

and pleeeease don't even suggest that this magical incident happened without the press ever finding out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ] and pleeeease do n't even suggest that this magical incident happened without the press ever finding out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]

and pleeeease don't even suggest that this magical incident happened without the press ever finding out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278714</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31283506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31289282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31284696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31290306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2012234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31284696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31283506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31281288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31290306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31280910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31282184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31277544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31289282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2012234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31278714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2012234.31279374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
