<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_0158205</id>
	<title>NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By Much</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268162520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/030410-rsa-cloud-security-warning.html">cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts</a> in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years, but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt. 'I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much &mdash; a handful of years,' says Snow. 'I think we've got the edge still.' Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of. 'Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field.' The NSA has one key advantage (besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes): 'We cheat. We get to read what [academics] publish. We do not publish what we research,' he said. Snow's claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel. Adi Shamir, the "S" in the RSA encryption algorithm, said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983, none of them included public key encryption; 'That demonstrates that NSA was behind,' said Shamir. Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don't necessarily use the same terms for them."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years , but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt .
'I do believe NSA is still ahead , but not by much    a handful of years, ' says Snow .
'I think we 've got the edge still .
' Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of .
'Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field .
' The NSA has one key advantage ( besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes ) : 'We cheat .
We get to read what [ academics ] publish .
We do not publish what we research, ' he said .
Snow 's claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel .
Adi Shamir , the " S " in the RSA encryption algorithm , said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983 , none of them included public key encryption ; 'That demonstrates that NSA was behind, ' said Shamir .
Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel , the developers do n't necessarily use the same terms for them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years, but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt.
'I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much — a handful of years,' says Snow.
'I think we've got the edge still.
' Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of.
'Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field.
' The NSA has one key advantage (besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes): 'We cheat.
We get to read what [academics] publish.
We do not publish what we research,' he said.
Snow's claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel.
Adi Shamir, the "S" in the RSA encryption algorithm, said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983, none of them included public key encryption; 'That demonstrates that NSA was behind,' said Shamir.
Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don't necessarily use the same terms for them.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411002</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like an English major who was forced to write a technical essay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like an English major who was forced to write a technical essay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like an English major who was forced to write a technical essay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412446</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*If* you *had* broken RSA and were reading everyone's stuff, would you tell anyone about it? No.</p><p>They're not exactly going to say "Oh hey, FYI, we broke all your codes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* If * you * had * broken RSA and were reading everyone 's stuff , would you tell anyone about it ?
No.They 're not exactly going to say " Oh hey , FYI , we broke all your codes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*If* you *had* broken RSA and were reading everyone's stuff, would you tell anyone about it?
No.They're not exactly going to say "Oh hey, FYI, we broke all your codes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me to think that real encryption is not beatable, but workable encryption is. The problem is not who has the best or admits to not having it, it's who has best real encryption that is workable between arbitrary peers. I can easily encrypt a drive that you will NEVER decrypt, but then neither will I be able to. It's the secrecy of the key that is the quest, not the encryption particularly. Hiding the key when it is shared publicly is a problem, will always be a problem, and the race is not necessarily one brain trust against another for the best hiding technique, but rather a race to figure out the best way to hide it for a reasonable amount of time from the most people. The fastest car on the planet is not declared the Indy500 winner, only the car that conforms to the rules of the race is. This race is not winable in the long term, and only valid as a race in the very short term. Don't count on your encrypted hard drive to protect your data from everyone, for all time. That's simply not going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me to think that real encryption is not beatable , but workable encryption is .
The problem is not who has the best or admits to not having it , it 's who has best real encryption that is workable between arbitrary peers .
I can easily encrypt a drive that you will NEVER decrypt , but then neither will I be able to .
It 's the secrecy of the key that is the quest , not the encryption particularly .
Hiding the key when it is shared publicly is a problem , will always be a problem , and the race is not necessarily one brain trust against another for the best hiding technique , but rather a race to figure out the best way to hide it for a reasonable amount of time from the most people .
The fastest car on the planet is not declared the Indy500 winner , only the car that conforms to the rules of the race is .
This race is not winable in the long term , and only valid as a race in the very short term .
Do n't count on your encrypted hard drive to protect your data from everyone , for all time .
That 's simply not going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me to think that real encryption is not beatable, but workable encryption is.
The problem is not who has the best or admits to not having it, it's who has best real encryption that is workable between arbitrary peers.
I can easily encrypt a drive that you will NEVER decrypt, but then neither will I be able to.
It's the secrecy of the key that is the quest, not the encryption particularly.
Hiding the key when it is shared publicly is a problem, will always be a problem, and the race is not necessarily one brain trust against another for the best hiding technique, but rather a race to figure out the best way to hide it for a reasonable amount of time from the most people.
The fastest car on the planet is not declared the Indy500 winner, only the car that conforms to the rules of the race is.
This race is not winable in the long term, and only valid as a race in the very short term.
Don't count on your encrypted hard drive to protect your data from everyone, for all time.
That's simply not going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31416988</id>
	<title>Brian Snow is smart -- and a heck of a nice guy</title>
	<author>Ranten\_N\_Raven</author>
	<datestamp>1268163420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had a chance to get to know Brian Snow many years ago.  The guy is not only so smart it's scary, he's also a very kind man.  He cares for those around him and shows that in how he relates to those of "lesser stature."  Never talked down to any of us, always polite, and very creative with a thoughtful going away gift when I left.  NSA technical director?  Wow!  Glad to see he rose t the heights he deserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had a chance to get to know Brian Snow many years ago .
The guy is not only so smart it 's scary , he 's also a very kind man .
He cares for those around him and shows that in how he relates to those of " lesser stature .
" Never talked down to any of us , always polite , and very creative with a thoughtful going away gift when I left .
NSA technical director ?
Wow ! Glad to see he rose t the heights he deserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had a chance to get to know Brian Snow many years ago.
The guy is not only so smart it's scary, he's also a very kind man.
He cares for those around him and shows that in how he relates to those of "lesser stature.
"  Never talked down to any of us, always polite, and very creative with a thoughtful going away gift when I left.
NSA technical director?
Wow!  Glad to see he rose t the heights he deserved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411278</id>
	<title>Re:Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268130360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are the best fucking trolls ever!  Hilarious!!  Just so randomly targeted at Malda - it makes me giggle<br> <br>
So much better than GNAA or shiteating or whatever.  <br> <br>
APPLAUSE!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the best fucking trolls ever !
Hilarious ! ! Just so randomly targeted at Malda - it makes me giggle So much better than GNAA or shiteating or whatever .
APPLAUSE ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the best fucking trolls ever!
Hilarious!!  Just so randomly targeted at Malda - it makes me giggle 
So much better than GNAA or shiteating or whatever.
APPLAUSE!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415992</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1268159040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you encrypt your drive using a one time pad then, yes, it is encrypted and safe for all time and is provably unreadable without someone having the key.  Of course, if it's a 1TB drive, then you need a 1TB key, and you can only use it once...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you encrypt your drive using a one time pad then , yes , it is encrypted and safe for all time and is provably unreadable without someone having the key .
Of course , if it 's a 1TB drive , then you need a 1TB key , and you can only use it once.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you encrypt your drive using a one time pad then, yes, it is encrypted and safe for all time and is provably unreadable without someone having the key.
Of course, if it's a 1TB drive, then you need a 1TB key, and you can only use it once...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31417074</id>
	<title>The nation's secrets are safe...</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1268163780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No badguy encryption is safe against Abby and McGee's secret decoder groups and rings, codenamed GRRR.  And even if that doesn't work, we can always get Sigourney Weaver to stare at a screenful of alien gobbledygook for a few hours.
<br> <br>
Kidding aside, the NSA does not indulge in bragadoccio without a reason.  In the present instance, the motive may simply be to panic Ted and Alice into changing not just their keys, but their algorithms, hopefully forcing them to use beta (and buggy) software before its time.  The attack is against weakness (i.e., pointy-haired managers) and not against techs (must...restrain...Fist...of...Death....)
<br> <br>
The only point of interest in this is how NSA capabilities fare versus similar shops, for example, Mossad, the Russians, the British, the French, the North Koreans, China, India, Toodai, Al Qaeda, NHK, some group you'd never dream of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No badguy encryption is safe against Abby and McGee 's secret decoder groups and rings , codenamed GRRR .
And even if that does n't work , we can always get Sigourney Weaver to stare at a screenful of alien gobbledygook for a few hours .
Kidding aside , the NSA does not indulge in bragadoccio without a reason .
In the present instance , the motive may simply be to panic Ted and Alice into changing not just their keys , but their algorithms , hopefully forcing them to use beta ( and buggy ) software before its time .
The attack is against weakness ( i.e. , pointy-haired managers ) and not against techs ( must...restrain...Fist...of...Death.... ) The only point of interest in this is how NSA capabilities fare versus similar shops , for example , Mossad , the Russians , the British , the French , the North Koreans , China , India , Toodai , Al Qaeda , NHK , some group you 'd never dream of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No badguy encryption is safe against Abby and McGee's secret decoder groups and rings, codenamed GRRR.
And even if that doesn't work, we can always get Sigourney Weaver to stare at a screenful of alien gobbledygook for a few hours.
Kidding aside, the NSA does not indulge in bragadoccio without a reason.
In the present instance, the motive may simply be to panic Ted and Alice into changing not just their keys, but their algorithms, hopefully forcing them to use beta (and buggy) software before its time.
The attack is against weakness (i.e., pointy-haired managers) and not against techs (must...restrain...Fist...of...Death....)
 
The only point of interest in this is how NSA capabilities fare versus similar shops, for example, Mossad, the Russians, the British, the French, the North Koreans, China, India, Toodai, Al Qaeda, NHK, some group you'd never dream of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31416272</id>
	<title>passwords on postit notes under keyboards</title>
	<author>garethharris</author>
	<datestamp>1268160060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People spend a lot of time worrying about information security when their physical procedures are like a colander.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People spend a lot of time worrying about information security when their physical procedures are like a colander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People spend a lot of time worrying about information security when their physical procedures are like a colander.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413806</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>DudeTheMath</author>
	<datestamp>1268150880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed! PK crypto, block ciphers, etc., was in my Elementary Number Theory textbook (1984, Kenneth Rosen). No freakin' way NSA didn't know how to do that before 1983--as he said, if it's not in a title, then they called it something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed !
PK crypto , block ciphers , etc. , was in my Elementary Number Theory textbook ( 1984 , Kenneth Rosen ) .
No freakin ' way NSA did n't know how to do that before 1983--as he said , if it 's not in a title , then they called it something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed!
PK crypto, block ciphers, etc., was in my Elementary Number Theory textbook (1984, Kenneth Rosen).
No freakin' way NSA didn't know how to do that before 1983--as he said, if it's not in a title, then they called it something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415712</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268157900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a while since I read this wonderful book that covers this bit of history:<br>http://www.amazon.com/Code-Book-Science-Secrecy-Cryptography/dp/0385495323/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1268154140&amp;sr=8-1-spell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but if I remember right, the GCHQ didn't really appreciate the significance on what Ellis and Cocks had discovered and didn't do a whole lot with it. (Insert rant about government efficiency here). I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pass it on to the NSA simply because nobody cared very much. The state of the art one-time pads are (and remain) totally unbreakable, and they were satisfied enough with these. It was a fun math project that people were pretty much doing in their spare time.</p><p>Correct me if I'm remembering wrong...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a while since I read this wonderful book that covers this bit of history : http : //www.amazon.com/Code-Book-Science-Secrecy-Cryptography/dp/0385495323/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;qid = 1268154140&amp;sr = 8-1-spell ...but if I remember right , the GCHQ did n't really appreciate the significance on what Ellis and Cocks had discovered and did n't do a whole lot with it .
( Insert rant about government efficiency here ) .
I would n't be surprised if they did n't pass it on to the NSA simply because nobody cared very much .
The state of the art one-time pads are ( and remain ) totally unbreakable , and they were satisfied enough with these .
It was a fun math project that people were pretty much doing in their spare time.Correct me if I 'm remembering wrong.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a while since I read this wonderful book that covers this bit of history:http://www.amazon.com/Code-Book-Science-Secrecy-Cryptography/dp/0385495323/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1268154140&amp;sr=8-1-spell ...but if I remember right, the GCHQ didn't really appreciate the significance on what Ellis and Cocks had discovered and didn't do a whole lot with it.
(Insert rant about government efficiency here).
I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pass it on to the NSA simply because nobody cared very much.
The state of the art one-time pads are (and remain) totally unbreakable, and they were satisfied enough with these.
It was a fun math project that people were pretty much doing in their spare time.Correct me if I'm remembering wrong...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413732</id>
	<title>Mandatory XKCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268150520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/538/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/538/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/538/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411056</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1268126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're never going to be able to decrypt the data, then you might as well cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda.  Because it's indistinguishable from random chaos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're never going to be able to decrypt the data , then you might as well cat /dev/random &gt; /dev/sda .
Because it 's indistinguishable from random chaos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're never going to be able to decrypt the data, then you might as well cat /dev/random &gt; /dev/sda.
Because it's indistinguishable from random chaos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31414354</id>
	<title>Shamir should know NSA did invent Public-Key first</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268153100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the journalism of John Young, famously of cryptome.org, the name NSA used for what we call "public key" cryptography is thare called "non-secret cryptography" meaning that one of the keys is not secret.

John Young's article can be read here: <a href="http://cryptome.org/nsa-nse/nsa-nse-01.htm" title="cryptome.org" rel="nofollow">http://cryptome.org/nsa-nse/nsa-nse-01.htm</a> [cryptome.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the journalism of John Young , famously of cryptome.org , the name NSA used for what we call " public key " cryptography is thare called " non-secret cryptography " meaning that one of the keys is not secret .
John Young 's article can be read here : http : //cryptome.org/nsa-nse/nsa-nse-01.htm [ cryptome.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the journalism of John Young, famously of cryptome.org, the name NSA used for what we call "public key" cryptography is thare called "non-secret cryptography" meaning that one of the keys is not secret.
John Young's article can be read here: http://cryptome.org/nsa-nse/nsa-nse-01.htm [cryptome.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31416458</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268160780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh. That's interesting. Reminds me of an episode of Spooks where someone apparently "breaks" some sort of fictional encryption scheme used in everything on the Internet. I can only assume they meant public key encryption. The guy who did it turns out to work for GCHQ, and was the brains behind the invention of it in the first place- but the fictional scheme was invented in the US by a couple of researchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
That 's interesting .
Reminds me of an episode of Spooks where someone apparently " breaks " some sort of fictional encryption scheme used in everything on the Internet .
I can only assume they meant public key encryption .
The guy who did it turns out to work for GCHQ , and was the brains behind the invention of it in the first place- but the fictional scheme was invented in the US by a couple of researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
That's interesting.
Reminds me of an episode of Spooks where someone apparently "breaks" some sort of fictional encryption scheme used in everything on the Internet.
I can only assume they meant public key encryption.
The guy who did it turns out to work for GCHQ, and was the brains behind the invention of it in the first place- but the fictional scheme was invented in the US by a couple of researchers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</id>
	<title>they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>what else would you expect from a public servant. he won't admit the private sector has them beat because it'd be the end of his job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what else would you expect from a public servant .
he wo n't admit the private sector has them beat because it 'd be the end of his job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what else would you expect from a public servant.
he won't admit the private sector has them beat because it'd be the end of his job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumsta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstances</b></p><p>New details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen. Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda&rsquo;s infidelity with various street trannies.</p><p>In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car. He told his wife that he &ldquo;stopped to help a person crying.&rdquo; Several other hookers sold tales of Malda&rsquo;s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:<br>Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: &ldquo;I called [Malda attorney] Marty &lsquo;Bull Dog&rsquo; Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.&rdquo; And they would all recant their stories.</p><p>&ldquo;In less than 10 days,&rdquo; Barresi says, &ldquo;I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn&rsquo;t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they&rsquo;d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.&rdquo; In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.</p><p>Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda&rsquo;s car in 2007. After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn&rsquo;t change her story. How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda 's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years , Kathleen .
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup , citing Malda    s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007 , Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car .
He told his wife that he    stopped to help a person crying.    Several other hookers sold tales of Malda    s solicitation to the tabloids , and all of them were convinced to recant , with one exception : Paul Barresi , a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke , tells Page Six :    I called [ Malda attorney ] Marty    Bull Dog    Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.    And they would all recant their stories.    In less than 10 days ,    Barresi says ,    I got them all to sign sworn , videotaped depositions , stating it wasn    t Malda himself , but rather a look-alike , who they    d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.    In 2008 , she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda    s car in 2007 .
After being caught by police , she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn    t change her story .
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen.
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda’s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car.
He told his wife that he “stopped to help a person crying.” Several other hookers sold tales of Malda’s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: “I called [Malda attorney] Marty ‘Bull Dog’ Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.” And they would all recant their stories.“In less than 10 days,” Barresi says, “I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn’t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they’d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.” In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda’s car in 2007.
After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn’t change her story.
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411112</id>
	<title>ROFL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that you, TripMasterFucktard, are well aware that the NSA has the crypto keys to your beloved Windows install, correct?</p><p>You're cool with that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that you , TripMasterFucktard , are well aware that the NSA has the crypto keys to your beloved Windows install , correct ? You 're cool with that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that you, TripMasterFucktard, are well aware that the NSA has the crypto keys to your beloved Windows install, correct?You're cool with that, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411216</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Public key encryption,  that would be the crypto system invented at GCHQ in the UK by public servants<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but not published and then re-invented (independently) by RSA 6-7 years later<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Public key encryption , that would be the crypto system invented at GCHQ in the UK by public servants .... but not published and then re-invented ( independently ) by RSA 6-7 years later .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public key encryption,  that would be the crypto system invented at GCHQ in the UK by public servants .... but not published and then re-invented (independently) by RSA 6-7 years later ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413860</id>
	<title>How I know this is bullshit:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Original quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much -- a handful of years,' says Snow. 'I think we've got the edge still.'</p> </div><p>Slashdot headline:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By Much</p></div><p>Sorry, Snow. But someone &ldquo;thinking&rdquo; that something is that way, has nothing to do with what it actually is.<br>There are people out there who still &ldquo;think&rdquo; that earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and that there is a bearded man in the sky.</p><p>Then again, if you follow the money/power, you realize quickly, why that empty and pointless quote gets thrown around the Internet...<br>Yeees NSA... you&rsquo;re still the best... mama still loves you... really! *pat-pat*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I wish that NO agency of any country is &ldquo;ahead&rdquo; in crypto. It&rsquo;s like saying that Jack the Ripper is still ahead of the police. Not a world you want to live in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Original quote : 'I do believe NSA is still ahead , but not by much -- a handful of years, ' says Snow .
'I think we 've got the edge still .
' Slashdot headline : NSA Still Ahead In Crypto , But Not By MuchSorry , Snow .
But someone    thinking    that something is that way , has nothing to do with what it actually is.There are people out there who still    think    that earth is flat , the sun revolves around it , and that there is a bearded man in the sky.Then again , if you follow the money/power , you realize quickly , why that empty and pointless quote gets thrown around the Internet...Yeees NSA... you    re still the best... mama still loves you... really ! * pat-pat * ; ) I wish that NO agency of any country is    ahead    in crypto .
It    s like saying that Jack the Ripper is still ahead of the police .
Not a world you want to live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Original quote:'I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much -- a handful of years,' says Snow.
'I think we've got the edge still.
' Slashdot headline:NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By MuchSorry, Snow.
But someone “thinking” that something is that way, has nothing to do with what it actually is.There are people out there who still “think” that earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and that there is a bearded man in the sky.Then again, if you follow the money/power, you realize quickly, why that empty and pointless quote gets thrown around the Internet...Yeees NSA... you’re still the best... mama still loves you... really! *pat-pat* ;)I wish that NO agency of any country is “ahead” in crypto.
It’s like saying that Jack the Ripper is still ahead of the police.
Not a world you want to live in.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31414736</id>
	<title>Re:Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Rob Malda is secretly Eddie Murphy? Hmm, come to think of it, I've never seen the two of them in the same room at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Rob Malda is secretly Eddie Murphy ?
Hmm , come to think of it , I 've never seen the two of them in the same room at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Rob Malda is secretly Eddie Murphy?
Hmm, come to think of it, I've never seen the two of them in the same room at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410842</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what they want you to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they want you to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they want you to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411522</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1268134380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is true that it would not be in his interest to admit <i>if</i> they are beat that does not imply that they are beat. And you would have to be an idiot to believe that they are. To pick up on three points from the video:</p><ul> <li>They employ several hundred PhDs and have a budget that would make any company or university in the sector weep.</li><li>They can read the literature and take ideas but don't have to reciprocate by publishing their work.</li><li>They are not handicapped by inconveniences like the law when it comes to experiments on traffic analysis.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is true that it would not be in his interest to admit if they are beat that does not imply that they are beat .
And you would have to be an idiot to believe that they are .
To pick up on three points from the video : They employ several hundred PhDs and have a budget that would make any company or university in the sector weep.They can read the literature and take ideas but do n't have to reciprocate by publishing their work.They are not handicapped by inconveniences like the law when it comes to experiments on traffic analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is true that it would not be in his interest to admit if they are beat that does not imply that they are beat.
And you would have to be an idiot to believe that they are.
To pick up on three points from the video: They employ several hundred PhDs and have a budget that would make any company or university in the sector weep.They can read the literature and take ideas but don't have to reciprocate by publishing their work.They are not handicapped by inconveniences like the law when it comes to experiments on traffic analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410856</id>
	<title>Their latest decoded message:</title>
	<author>WegianWarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1268166900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be sure to drink your Ovaltine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415028</id>
	<title>dod dy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268155440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>99754106633f94d350db34d548d6091a - That's life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>99754106633f94d350db34d548d6091a - That 's life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>99754106633f94d350db34d548d6091a - That's life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except he's (more or less) right. James Ellis, at GCHQ (roughly the UK equivalent of NSA) had developed the basics of public key cryptography by the end of 1969. This was about 6 years ahead of Diffie Hellman and Merkle. In 1973, a GCHQ cryptographer, Clifford Cocks, realized that one-way functions would be an elegant way of achieving Ellis' insight. See <a href="http://cryptome.org/ukpk-alt.htm" title="cryptome.org">http://cryptome.org/ukpk-alt.htm</a> [cryptome.org] for example. This was some years ahead of RSA.</p><p>GCHQ and the NSA definitely would have exchanged this information. It's also quite possible that the US made some of these breakthroughs even earlier than the British; I've not paid much attention to anything NSA-related that has declassified in the last 5+ years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except he 's ( more or less ) right .
James Ellis , at GCHQ ( roughly the UK equivalent of NSA ) had developed the basics of public key cryptography by the end of 1969 .
This was about 6 years ahead of Diffie Hellman and Merkle .
In 1973 , a GCHQ cryptographer , Clifford Cocks , realized that one-way functions would be an elegant way of achieving Ellis ' insight .
See http : //cryptome.org/ukpk-alt.htm [ cryptome.org ] for example .
This was some years ahead of RSA.GCHQ and the NSA definitely would have exchanged this information .
It 's also quite possible that the US made some of these breakthroughs even earlier than the British ; I 've not paid much attention to anything NSA-related that has declassified in the last 5 + years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except he's (more or less) right.
James Ellis, at GCHQ (roughly the UK equivalent of NSA) had developed the basics of public key cryptography by the end of 1969.
This was about 6 years ahead of Diffie Hellman and Merkle.
In 1973, a GCHQ cryptographer, Clifford Cocks, realized that one-way functions would be an elegant way of achieving Ellis' insight.
See http://cryptome.org/ukpk-alt.htm [cryptome.org] for example.
This was some years ahead of RSA.GCHQ and the NSA definitely would have exchanged this information.
It's also quite possible that the US made some of these breakthroughs even earlier than the British; I've not paid much attention to anything NSA-related that has declassified in the last 5+ years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31419038</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1268128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt anyone is really trying to read this.  Lets reuse the one time pad just once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt anyone is really trying to read this .
Lets reuse the one time pad just once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt anyone is really trying to read this.
Lets reuse the one time pad just once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411016</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think hiding the key has been a problem. Public-key cryptography already enables the other key to be publicly known and it doesn't reveal the private key required to encrypt in that. Also if you're using password based key, then obviously you cannot make it public. In the end all of the cryptos are breakable by brute-forcing, it's just about making that part harder. Currently "breaking" the encryption techniques have been mostly about trying to lower the amount of brute-forcing you need to do. The race is mostly about developing stronger cryptos which also wouldn't have those weaknesses.</p><p>But for that matter, even the publicly used cryptos now a day aren't really breakable. Unless, of course, if NSA at some point designed a backdoor in the algorithms. But if so, that won't be used just randomly as it would leak really fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think hiding the key has been a problem .
Public-key cryptography already enables the other key to be publicly known and it does n't reveal the private key required to encrypt in that .
Also if you 're using password based key , then obviously you can not make it public .
In the end all of the cryptos are breakable by brute-forcing , it 's just about making that part harder .
Currently " breaking " the encryption techniques have been mostly about trying to lower the amount of brute-forcing you need to do .
The race is mostly about developing stronger cryptos which also would n't have those weaknesses.But for that matter , even the publicly used cryptos now a day are n't really breakable .
Unless , of course , if NSA at some point designed a backdoor in the algorithms .
But if so , that wo n't be used just randomly as it would leak really fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think hiding the key has been a problem.
Public-key cryptography already enables the other key to be publicly known and it doesn't reveal the private key required to encrypt in that.
Also if you're using password based key, then obviously you cannot make it public.
In the end all of the cryptos are breakable by brute-forcing, it's just about making that part harder.
Currently "breaking" the encryption techniques have been mostly about trying to lower the amount of brute-forcing you need to do.
The race is mostly about developing stronger cryptos which also wouldn't have those weaknesses.But for that matter, even the publicly used cryptos now a day aren't really breakable.
Unless, of course, if NSA at some point designed a backdoor in the algorithms.
But if so, that won't be used just randomly as it would leak really fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412926</id>
	<title>Re:Their latest decoded message:</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1268147100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Son of a BITCH!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Son of a BITCH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Son of a BITCH!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410872</id>
	<title>Re:they aren't very well going to admit defeat.</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1268167080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the article said he was a Former NSA technical director.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the article said he was a Former NSA technical director .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the article said he was a Former NSA technical director.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411982</id>
	<title>Would anyone?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1268140920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what else would you expect from a public servant. he won't admit the private sector has them beat because it'd be the end of his job.</i></p><p>I don't think gov't vs private sector has the same meaning here.  Would anyone flat out admit that another institution of any kind has them beat, and thus lose his or her job?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what else would you expect from a public servant .
he wo n't admit the private sector has them beat because it 'd be the end of his job.I do n't think gov't vs private sector has the same meaning here .
Would anyone flat out admit that another institution of any kind has them beat , and thus lose his or her job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what else would you expect from a public servant.
he won't admit the private sector has them beat because it'd be the end of his job.I don't think gov't vs private sector has the same meaning here.
Would anyone flat out admit that another institution of any kind has them beat, and thus lose his or her job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31419038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31414736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0158205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31416458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0158205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31414736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0158205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0158205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31412446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31416458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31419038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31415992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31410872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31411982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0158205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0158205.31413860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
