<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_10_2255252</id>
	<title>Zeus Botnet Dealt a Blow As ISPs Troyak, Group 3 Knocked Out</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268222340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"Ninety of the 249 <a href="http://www.itworld.com/government/100020/zeus-botnet-dealt-blow-isp-troyak-knocked-out">Zeus command-and-control servers were knocked offline</a> overnight when two ISPs, named Troyak and Group 3, were taken offline. Whoever was behind the takedown 'just decided to knock out a large area of cyber-crime, and this was probably one of the easiest ways to do it,' said Kevin Stevens, a researcher with SecureWorks. As with the <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/11/17/2053220/McColo-Takedown-Vigilantes-Or-Neighborhood-Watch?art\_pos=10">McColo takedown</a> of just over a year ago, Troyak's upstream providers seem to have knocked it off the Internet, Cisco said in a statement. 'The ISP was "De-peered,"' Cisco said. 'Troyak's upstream network providers effectively pulled the plug on Troyak's router, refusing to transmit its traffic.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " Ninety of the 249 Zeus command-and-control servers were knocked offline overnight when two ISPs , named Troyak and Group 3 , were taken offline .
Whoever was behind the takedown 'just decided to knock out a large area of cyber-crime , and this was probably one of the easiest ways to do it, ' said Kevin Stevens , a researcher with SecureWorks .
As with the McColo takedown of just over a year ago , Troyak 's upstream providers seem to have knocked it off the Internet , Cisco said in a statement .
'The ISP was " De-peered , " ' Cisco said .
'Troyak 's upstream network providers effectively pulled the plug on Troyak 's router , refusing to transmit its traffic .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "Ninety of the 249 Zeus command-and-control servers were knocked offline overnight when two ISPs, named Troyak and Group 3, were taken offline.
Whoever was behind the takedown 'just decided to knock out a large area of cyber-crime, and this was probably one of the easiest ways to do it,' said Kevin Stevens, a researcher with SecureWorks.
As with the McColo takedown of just over a year ago, Troyak's upstream providers seem to have knocked it off the Internet, Cisco said in a statement.
'The ISP was "De-peered,"' Cisco said.
'Troyak's upstream network providers effectively pulled the plug on Troyak's router, refusing to transmit its traffic.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433128</id>
	<title>Why the "statement" from Cisco?</title>
	<author>Seor Jojoba</author>
	<datestamp>1268228460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I can tell, Cisco wasn't involved in the decisions.  It looks like the writer went to the two ISPs for comment, but came up dry--well, except for that one anoymous comment.  Then the writer asked Cisco what they thought about the whole thing to fill out the piece.  Probably the ISPs are afraid of being targeted in retaliation and want to keep a low profile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , Cisco was n't involved in the decisions .
It looks like the writer went to the two ISPs for comment , but came up dry--well , except for that one anoymous comment .
Then the writer asked Cisco what they thought about the whole thing to fill out the piece .
Probably the ISPs are afraid of being targeted in retaliation and want to keep a low profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, Cisco wasn't involved in the decisions.
It looks like the writer went to the two ISPs for comment, but came up dry--well, except for that one anoymous comment.
Then the writer asked Cisco what they thought about the whole thing to fill out the piece.
Probably the ISPs are afraid of being targeted in retaliation and want to keep a low profile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433686</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who didn't get it, (about a dozen replies at the time of this posting), parent is referring to how pointless the summary is.  The submitter basically took the title and rephrased it 4 different ways instead of adding additional useful information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who did n't get it , ( about a dozen replies at the time of this posting ) , parent is referring to how pointless the summary is .
The submitter basically took the title and rephrased it 4 different ways instead of adding additional useful information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who didn't get it, (about a dozen replies at the time of this posting), parent is referring to how pointless the summary is.
The submitter basically took the title and rephrased it 4 different ways instead of adding additional useful information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433386</id>
	<title>Zeus shall have his revenge!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268230320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the gods are at war it is us, mere mortals who suffer because of it. Ye best beware the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ides\_of\_March" title="wikipedia.org">Ides of March</a> [wikipedia.org] will soon be upon us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the gods are at war it is us , mere mortals who suffer because of it .
Ye best beware the Ides of March [ wikipedia.org ] will soon be upon us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the gods are at war it is us, mere mortals who suffer because of it.
Ye best beware the Ides of March [wikipedia.org] will soon be upon us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433104</id>
	<title>Update: Troyak is back online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268228220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/339223/after\_takedown\_botnet-linked\_isp\_troyak\_resurfaces/" title="goodgearguide.com.au">this article</a> [goodgearguide.com.au]: "Just hours after Internet service providers severed network connectivity to Troyak, an ISP associated with the Zeus botnet, the ISP has regained connectivity after peering with a new upstream Internet service provider."</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this article [ goodgearguide.com.au ] : " Just hours after Internet service providers severed network connectivity to Troyak , an ISP associated with the Zeus botnet , the ISP has regained connectivity after peering with a new upstream Internet service provider .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this article [goodgearguide.com.au]: "Just hours after Internet service providers severed network connectivity to Troyak, an ISP associated with the Zeus botnet, the ISP has regained connectivity after peering with a new upstream Internet service provider.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434532</id>
	<title>Re:Tangled memes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268242260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell your liniment grandpa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell your liniment grandpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell your liniment grandpa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the other 150?</p><p>I have a difficult time understanding how Zeus is *still* around; it started in mid 2007!  According to WP, it has more than 3.6 Million infected PCs.</p><p>There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally.  How is it that we know there are 150 other command nodes, presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses, but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down?</p><p>While I understand there are differences in laws, and with what is legal and what is accepted in different jurisdictions, but this seems patently absurd.  If an ISP provides service to a verified botnet control node, and refuses to quickly turn them off, I would expect immediate upstream action like this. Why hasn't this happened even more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the other 150 ? I have a difficult time understanding how Zeus is * still * around ; it started in mid 2007 !
According to WP , it has more than 3.6 Million infected PCs.There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally .
How is it that we know there are 150 other command nodes , presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses , but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down ? While I understand there are differences in laws , and with what is legal and what is accepted in different jurisdictions , but this seems patently absurd .
If an ISP provides service to a verified botnet control node , and refuses to quickly turn them off , I would expect immediate upstream action like this .
Why has n't this happened even more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the other 150?I have a difficult time understanding how Zeus is *still* around; it started in mid 2007!
According to WP, it has more than 3.6 Million infected PCs.There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally.
How is it that we know there are 150 other command nodes, presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses, but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down?While I understand there are differences in laws, and with what is legal and what is accepted in different jurisdictions, but this seems patently absurd.
If an ISP provides service to a verified botnet control node, and refuses to quickly turn them off, I would expect immediate upstream action like this.
Why hasn't this happened even more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432974</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268227200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are you asking me?  I just got home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you asking me ?
I just got home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you asking me?
I just got home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436748</id>
	<title>Re:And these ISP's other customers...?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268318220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a botnet&rsquo;s executable is contacting server xyz, and server xyz&rsquo;s IP address belongs to you, damn right you will know about it, because if you don&rsquo;t figure out on your own that you&rsquo;re providing internet connectivity to a botnet control server, you&rsquo;ll soon be notified by authorities and asked to cut the plug on the customer who&rsquo;s running the server.</p><p>All it takes is some antivirus/antimalware group to reverse-engineer the code and determine that yes, in fact, it IS using that server as a control node. There can be absolutely no excuse of the ISP not knowing about it.</p><p>The problem is:</p><p>the &ldquo;authorities&rdquo; who contact the ISP are from an entirely different country and can&rsquo;t enforce anything;<br>the local authorities don&rsquo;t care and/or are profiting from the spam;<br>the ISP doesn&rsquo;t want to cut a paying customer.</p><p>So nothing happens... unless the ISP&rsquo;s neighbours simultaneously decide to start routing its packets to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null. Which, effectively, is the nuclear option. You kill a lot of legitimate servers, and there&rsquo;s not a whole lot you can do about it because when crooks are also providing legitimate services, killing off the crooks hurts the legitimate customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a botnet    s executable is contacting server xyz , and server xyz    s IP address belongs to you , damn right you will know about it , because if you don    t figure out on your own that you    re providing internet connectivity to a botnet control server , you    ll soon be notified by authorities and asked to cut the plug on the customer who    s running the server.All it takes is some antivirus/antimalware group to reverse-engineer the code and determine that yes , in fact , it IS using that server as a control node .
There can be absolutely no excuse of the ISP not knowing about it.The problem is : the    authorities    who contact the ISP are from an entirely different country and can    t enforce anything ; the local authorities don    t care and/or are profiting from the spam ; the ISP doesn    t want to cut a paying customer.So nothing happens... unless the ISP    s neighbours simultaneously decide to start routing its packets to /dev/null .
Which , effectively , is the nuclear option .
You kill a lot of legitimate servers , and there    s not a whole lot you can do about it because when crooks are also providing legitimate services , killing off the crooks hurts the legitimate customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a botnet’s executable is contacting server xyz, and server xyz’s IP address belongs to you, damn right you will know about it, because if you don’t figure out on your own that you’re providing internet connectivity to a botnet control server, you’ll soon be notified by authorities and asked to cut the plug on the customer who’s running the server.All it takes is some antivirus/antimalware group to reverse-engineer the code and determine that yes, in fact, it IS using that server as a control node.
There can be absolutely no excuse of the ISP not knowing about it.The problem is:the “authorities” who contact the ISP are from an entirely different country and can’t enforce anything;the local authorities don’t care and/or are profiting from the spam;the ISP doesn’t want to cut a paying customer.So nothing happens... unless the ISP’s neighbours simultaneously decide to start routing its packets to /dev/null.
Which, effectively, is the nuclear option.
You kill a lot of legitimate servers, and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it because when crooks are also providing legitimate services, killing off the crooks hurts the legitimate customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436772</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268318460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>God damn, it's not rocket science, they blocked the traffic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn , it 's not rocket science , they blocked the traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn, it's not rocket science, they blocked the traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435180</id>
	<title>Re:And these ISP's other customers...?</title>
	<author>lhunath</author>
	<datestamp>1268338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give parent a voice; mod up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give parent a voice ; mod up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give parent a voice; mod up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439224</id>
	<title>Re:And these ISP's other customers...?</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1268328300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP's network?</p></div><p>Yes</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Was the ISP asked to deal with the situation first</p></div><p>Yes</p><p><div class="quote"><p>, and either ignored or refused such requests?</p></div><p>Yes</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners, where's the evidence?</p></div><p>Probably not</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Did someone just think, oh, there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP; let's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers?</p></div><p>Yes</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.</p></div><p>Maybe, but nobody died. A store which sells illegal drugs will be closed, even when they also sell legitimate stuff to legitimate customers. Is that excessive?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If these ISPs have legitimate customers, hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this.</p></div><p>No, hopefully they will know better then to do business with an ISP which doesn't mind doing business with criminals. It's not like this wasn't public knowledge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP 's network ? YesWas the ISP asked to deal with the situation firstYes , and either ignored or refused such requests ? Yes If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners , where 's the evidence ? Probably not Did someone just think , oh , there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP ; let 's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers ? YesThis action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.Maybe , but nobody died .
A store which sells illegal drugs will be closed , even when they also sell legitimate stuff to legitimate customers .
Is that excessive ? If these ISPs have legitimate customers , hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this.No , hopefully they will know better then to do business with an ISP which does n't mind doing business with criminals .
It 's not like this was n't public knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP's network?YesWas the ISP asked to deal with the situation firstYes, and either ignored or refused such requests?Yes If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners, where's the evidence?Probably not Did someone just think, oh, there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP; let's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers?YesThis action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.Maybe, but nobody died.
A store which sells illegal drugs will be closed, even when they also sell legitimate stuff to legitimate customers.
Is that excessive?If these ISPs have legitimate customers, hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this.No, hopefully they will know better then to do business with an ISP which doesn't mind doing business with criminals.
It's not like this wasn't public knowledge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435158</id>
	<title>Re:The short answer? Money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268338140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true.</p><p>At one of my jobs the boss willingly hosts a spammer and gives him a couple subnets, a XEON and a few mbit of traffic and gets thousands from it.</p><p>It's pretty annoying because i've been instructed to deal with spamhaus over it all the time and one of these days they're going to call the companies bluff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true.At one of my jobs the boss willingly hosts a spammer and gives him a couple subnets , a XEON and a few mbit of traffic and gets thousands from it.It 's pretty annoying because i 've been instructed to deal with spamhaus over it all the time and one of these days they 're going to call the companies bluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true.At one of my jobs the boss willingly hosts a spammer and gives him a couple subnets, a XEON and a few mbit of traffic and gets thousands from it.It's pretty annoying because i've been instructed to deal with spamhaus over it all the time and one of these days they're going to call the companies bluff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31470392</id>
	<title>LOL Windows as Secure as Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cdguru</p><p>You are not vary familiar with Linux I hope or work in Redmond WA at worst. There are exactly 0 Linux viruses in the wild to catch. In linux most user aimed distros install with no server based services by default unlike Windows which has the "server" service going just fine so when I bang with Medusa on your little windows network I WILL GET A PASS FROM SOME DAMN BOX and then its game over for your whole windows LAN most likely. A little sniffin and a little pasing the hash around and every damn box will get pwned in no time. It just is not that easy against a linux network.</p><p>Windows puts profit and control far above your safety and they like it that way as it supports their "CERTIFIED PARTNERS" like Norton's ( the worst AV that due to ad dollars spent some IT think is good, Hell last thing Symantech made was defrag and that was in the last century ). So for the people who are too stupid to use anything but point and click "Your screwed" try not to go many places or just pay geeksquad 200$ to "Fix" it everytime your kid is surfin for the pron.</p><p>For the rest of us lucky few thank god there are other options</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cdguruYou are not vary familiar with Linux I hope or work in Redmond WA at worst .
There are exactly 0 Linux viruses in the wild to catch .
In linux most user aimed distros install with no server based services by default unlike Windows which has the " server " service going just fine so when I bang with Medusa on your little windows network I WILL GET A PASS FROM SOME DAMN BOX and then its game over for your whole windows LAN most likely .
A little sniffin and a little pasing the hash around and every damn box will get pwned in no time .
It just is not that easy against a linux network.Windows puts profit and control far above your safety and they like it that way as it supports their " CERTIFIED PARTNERS " like Norton 's ( the worst AV that due to ad dollars spent some IT think is good , Hell last thing Symantech made was defrag and that was in the last century ) .
So for the people who are too stupid to use anything but point and click " Your screwed " try not to go many places or just pay geeksquad 200 $ to " Fix " it everytime your kid is surfin for the pron.For the rest of us lucky few thank god there are other options</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cdguruYou are not vary familiar with Linux I hope or work in Redmond WA at worst.
There are exactly 0 Linux viruses in the wild to catch.
In linux most user aimed distros install with no server based services by default unlike Windows which has the "server" service going just fine so when I bang with Medusa on your little windows network I WILL GET A PASS FROM SOME DAMN BOX and then its game over for your whole windows LAN most likely.
A little sniffin and a little pasing the hash around and every damn box will get pwned in no time.
It just is not that easy against a linux network.Windows puts profit and control far above your safety and they like it that way as it supports their "CERTIFIED PARTNERS" like Norton's ( the worst AV that due to ad dollars spent some IT think is good, Hell last thing Symantech made was defrag and that was in the last century ).
So for the people who are too stupid to use anything but point and click "Your screwed" try not to go many places or just pay geeksquad 200$ to "Fix" it everytime your kid is surfin for the pron.For the rest of us lucky few thank god there are other options</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435806</id>
	<title>Re:As will become more and more apparent...</title>
	<author>RMH101</author>
	<datestamp>1268304180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not that no-one cares enough, it's just that there's a bigger picture.  Countries benefit from international trading, and internet connectivity is part of that.  The geopolitics here are bigger than just stopping spam.  The US government isn't going to put a virtual trade embargo on a country just for spam, as the beenfits (either to the country or to the rulers of that country) outweighs the negatives by quite some margin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that no-one cares enough , it 's just that there 's a bigger picture .
Countries benefit from international trading , and internet connectivity is part of that .
The geopolitics here are bigger than just stopping spam .
The US government is n't going to put a virtual trade embargo on a country just for spam , as the beenfits ( either to the country or to the rulers of that country ) outweighs the negatives by quite some margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that no-one cares enough, it's just that there's a bigger picture.
Countries benefit from international trading, and internet connectivity is part of that.
The geopolitics here are bigger than just stopping spam.
The US government isn't going to put a virtual trade embargo on a country just for spam, as the beenfits (either to the country or to the rulers of that country) outweighs the negatives by quite some margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432996</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1268227320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all the command nodes are in jurisdictions that are reachable.  Some peer with larger carriers from behind borders where they are essentially untouchable.</p><p>Some may represent a large amount of income for there ISPs.  Some may cross the palms of their upstreams.</p><p>Its hard to cut off an entire country just because the only backbone provider has one customer that bribes them to look the other way.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all the command nodes are in jurisdictions that are reachable .
Some peer with larger carriers from behind borders where they are essentially untouchable.Some may represent a large amount of income for there ISPs .
Some may cross the palms of their upstreams.Its hard to cut off an entire country just because the only backbone provider has one customer that bribes them to look the other way .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all the command nodes are in jurisdictions that are reachable.
Some peer with larger carriers from behind borders where they are essentially untouchable.Some may represent a large amount of income for there ISPs.
Some may cross the palms of their upstreams.Its hard to cut off an entire country just because the only backbone provider has one customer that bribes them to look the other way.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434042</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1268236860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's also possible that the botnet is controlled by the ISP in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also possible that the botnet is controlled by the ISP in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also possible that the botnet is controlled by the ISP in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544</id>
	<title>And these ISP's other customers...?</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1268231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be an implication that Troyak and Group 3 were somehow <em>complicit</em> with all this botnet activity, yet no such claims are actually being explicitly made - just that the ISPs have been "associated" with these botnets, whatever that means.</p><p>Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP's network? Was the ISP asked to deal with the situation first, and either ignored or refused such requests? If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners, where's the evidence? Did someone just think, oh, there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP; let's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers?</p><p>This action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.</p><p>If these ISPs have legitimate customers, hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be an implication that Troyak and Group 3 were somehow complicit with all this botnet activity , yet no such claims are actually being explicitly made - just that the ISPs have been " associated " with these botnets , whatever that means.Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP 's network ?
Was the ISP asked to deal with the situation first , and either ignored or refused such requests ?
If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners , where 's the evidence ?
Did someone just think , oh , there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP ; let 's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers ? This action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.If these ISPs have legitimate customers , hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be an implication that Troyak and Group 3 were somehow complicit with all this botnet activity, yet no such claims are actually being explicitly made - just that the ISPs have been "associated" with these botnets, whatever that means.Did these ISPs have legitimate customers who have now been cut off because of the criminals alongside them on the ISP's network?
Was the ISP asked to deal with the situation first, and either ignored or refused such requests?
If these ISPs were fronts for the botnet owners, where's the evidence?
Did someone just think, oh, there are a bunch of bad guys on this ISP; let's cut the whole thing off and fuck the rest of their customers?This action sounds like the IT equivalent of a government blowing up an entire city block because a couple terrorists are renting an apartment there.If these ISPs have legitimate customers, hopefully they sue the hell out of the upstream for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433008</id>
	<title>re</title>
	<author>Mantis8</author>
	<datestamp>1268227440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I have to say is, "Bout time"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I have to say is , " Bout time " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I have to say is, "Bout time"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432830</id>
	<title>Niney</title>
	<author>Evelas</author>
	<datestamp>1268226060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read that, figured it was Nine, read the article, 90 of 249</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read that , figured it was Nine , read the article , 90 of 249</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read that, figured it was Nine, read the article, 90 of 249</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434252</id>
	<title>Re:YRO</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1268239320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely, at the end of the day I would rather just deal with a few more spam emails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , at the end of the day I would rather just deal with a few more spam emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, at the end of the day I would rather just deal with a few more spam emails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433338</id>
	<title>Re:The short answer? Money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268229900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is called a pink contract.</p><p><a href="http://catb.org/jargon/html/P/pink-contract.html" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">http://catb.org/jargon/html/P/pink-contract.html</a> [catb.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is called a pink contract.http : //catb.org/jargon/html/P/pink-contract.html [ catb.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is called a pink contract.http://catb.org/jargon/html/P/pink-contract.html [catb.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439012</id>
	<title>... in the meantime...</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1268327640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... hundreds of bot nets were created... but they got 1, they are happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... hundreds of bot nets were created... but they got 1 , they are happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... hundreds of bot nets were created... but they got 1, they are happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</id>
	<title>Words</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1268226360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit</p><p>I'm sorry, you're going to have to repeat that; what happened?  Were they somehow removed from the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off... " De-peered , " '...pulled the plug... refusing to transmitI 'm sorry , you 're going to have to repeat that ; what happened ?
Were they somehow removed from the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmitI'm sorry, you're going to have to repeat that; what happened?
Were they somehow removed from the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433194</id>
	<title>PININ' for the FJORDS?!</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1268228760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit</p></div><p>...  IT IS A DEAD ISP! &lt;/cleese&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off... " De-peered , " '...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit... IT IS A DEAD ISP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit...  IT IS A DEAD ISP! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435826</id>
	<title>Re:Windows again</title>
	<author>Macthorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1268304540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's because this is Slashdot, and everyone with half a brain knows that the malware writers target Windows almost exclusively. Whether this is because it's insecure or because of popularity, or otherwise, is up to the reader.

None of the rest of us need that to be repeated over and over again to satisfy the sense of self-worth you get just because you don't use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because this is Slashdot , and everyone with half a brain knows that the malware writers target Windows almost exclusively .
Whether this is because it 's insecure or because of popularity , or otherwise , is up to the reader .
None of the rest of us need that to be repeated over and over again to satisfy the sense of self-worth you get just because you do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because this is Slashdot, and everyone with half a brain knows that the malware writers target Windows almost exclusively.
Whether this is because it's insecure or because of popularity, or otherwise, is up to the reader.
None of the rest of us need that to be repeated over and over again to satisfy the sense of self-worth you get just because you don't use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434054</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1268237100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmit</p></div><p>If they weren't pushing out the spam, they'd be pushing up the daisies!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off... " De-peered , " '...pulled the plug... refusing to transmitIf they were n't pushing out the spam , they 'd be pushing up the daisies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>knocked offline...taken offline....takedown...knock out.......have knocked it off..."De-peered,"'...pulled the plug... refusing to transmitIf they weren't pushing out the spam, they'd be pushing up the daisies!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434030</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1268236680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With your line of reasoning, thepiratebay would have gone down and stayed down in spite of Swedish law and not because of it.</p><p>I can't say whether or not the laws of the lands in which the remaining servers reside make their existence illegal -- I hope they do or I hope they will soon -- but it is best to act within the law rather than outside of it.</p><p>I am glad that thepiratebay is still up and running.  I find it useful.  And if it means tolerating the existence of botnets for the same reasons, I could learn to live with it.  I seriously dislike it when business and/or government decide to ignore the law to go after their aims directly.  I much prefer that they stay within the rules.</p><p>It can still be done if there is enough interest expressed in it.  Write your congressman.  Contact your ambassadors.  Email the president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With your line of reasoning , thepiratebay would have gone down and stayed down in spite of Swedish law and not because of it.I ca n't say whether or not the laws of the lands in which the remaining servers reside make their existence illegal -- I hope they do or I hope they will soon -- but it is best to act within the law rather than outside of it.I am glad that thepiratebay is still up and running .
I find it useful .
And if it means tolerating the existence of botnets for the same reasons , I could learn to live with it .
I seriously dislike it when business and/or government decide to ignore the law to go after their aims directly .
I much prefer that they stay within the rules.It can still be done if there is enough interest expressed in it .
Write your congressman .
Contact your ambassadors .
Email the president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With your line of reasoning, thepiratebay would have gone down and stayed down in spite of Swedish law and not because of it.I can't say whether or not the laws of the lands in which the remaining servers reside make their existence illegal -- I hope they do or I hope they will soon -- but it is best to act within the law rather than outside of it.I am glad that thepiratebay is still up and running.
I find it useful.
And if it means tolerating the existence of botnets for the same reasons, I could learn to live with it.
I seriously dislike it when business and/or government decide to ignore the law to go after their aims directly.
I much prefer that they stay within the rules.It can still be done if there is enough interest expressed in it.
Write your congressman.
Contact your ambassadors.
Email the president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433916</id>
	<title>Re:No Longer Vigilantism?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268235600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't "vigilantism" to choose to cease doing business with someone.  If these ISPs feel that there was a breach of contract they can sue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't " vigilantism " to choose to cease doing business with someone .
If these ISPs feel that there was a breach of contract they can sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't "vigilantism" to choose to cease doing business with someone.
If these ISPs feel that there was a breach of contract they can sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432906</id>
	<title>Internet Death Penalty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might as well call it by its name: <a href="http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/I/Internet-Death-Penalty.html" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">Internet Death Penalty</a> [catb.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might as well call it by its name : Internet Death Penalty [ catb.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might as well call it by its name: Internet Death Penalty [catb.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31437122</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>happy*nix</author>
	<datestamp>1268321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So and up stream ISP took some action to take these server off the internet.<br>
&nbsp; So did they<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; A. Cut the tubes leading to zeus<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; B. clog the tube with something<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; C. install a calve on the tube</p><p>Cause if they didn't (A) cut the tube, won't zeus be able to pump stuff into the internet again by (B) having their internet tube cleaned or (C) have someone walk out to the curb and turn the valve back on?</p><p>-GW</p><p>P.S. could we flush a tube-bursting bomb down zeus's tube and reall shut them down for good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So and up stream ISP took some action to take these server off the internet .
  So did they     A. Cut the tubes leading to zeus     B. clog the tube with something     C. install a calve on the tubeCause if they did n't ( A ) cut the tube , wo n't zeus be able to pump stuff into the internet again by ( B ) having their internet tube cleaned or ( C ) have someone walk out to the curb and turn the valve back on ? -GWP.S .
could we flush a tube-bursting bomb down zeus 's tube and reall shut them down for good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So and up stream ISP took some action to take these server off the internet.
  So did they
    A. Cut the tubes leading to zeus
    B. clog the tube with something
    C. install a calve on the tubeCause if they didn't (A) cut the tube, won't zeus be able to pump stuff into the internet again by (B) having their internet tube cleaned or (C) have someone walk out to the curb and turn the valve back on?-GWP.S.
could we flush a tube-bursting bomb down zeus's tube and reall shut them down for good</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726</id>
	<title>Re:PININ' for the FJORDS?!</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1268233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Praline walks into a datacenter.<br>He walks to a desk where a sysadmin tries to hide below a tape rack.</p><p>PRALINE: Hello, I wish to register a complaint... Hello? Miss?</p><p>SYSADMIN: What do you mean, miss?</p><p>PRALINE: Oh, I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint.</p><p>SYSADMIN: Sorry, we're closing for patch Tuesday.</p><p>PRALINE: Never mind that my lad, I wish to make a complain about this hosting service what I leased not half an hour ago from this very datacenter.</p><p>SYSADMIN: Oh yes, the Kazakhstan Big Blue Blade Server package. What's wrong with it?</p><p>PRALINE: I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's offline, that's what wrong with it.</p><p>SYSADMIN: No, no it's connecting, look!</p><p>PRALINE: Look my lad, I know a dead host when I ping one and I'm pingin' one right now.</p><p>SYSADMIN: No, no sir, it's not dead. It's syncing.</p><p>PRALINE: Syncing?</p><p>SYSADMIN: Yeah, remarkable host the Kazakhstan Big Blue, beautiful rackmounting job, innit?</p><p>PRALINE: The rackmountin' don't enter into it - it's stone dead.</p><p>SYSADMIN: No, no - it's just syncing.</p><p>PRALINE: All right then, if it's syncing I'll sync with it. (shouts into cabinet) Hello Khaki! I've got a nice piece of Cat 6 for you when you wake up, Khaki!</p><p>SYSADMIN: (jogging rack) There it blinked.</p><p>PRALINE: No it didn't. That was you yankin' the wire.</p><p>SYSADMIN: I did not.</p><p>PRALINE: Yes, you did. (unplugs wire from cabinet, shouts into the end of the ethernet cable) Hello Khaki, Khaki (whips it against counter) Khaki host, wake up. Khaki. (throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor) Now that's what I call a dead host.</p><p>SYSADMIN: No, no it's stunned.</p><p>PRALINE: Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this. That host is definitely depeered. And when I leased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its lack of connectivity wad due to it being tired and shagged out after delisting a porn site.</p><p>SYSADMIN: It's probably pining for the fjords.</p><p>PRALINE: Pining for the fjords, what kind of talk is that? Look, why did it refuse to connect the moment I got home?</p><p>SYSADMIN: The Kazakhstan Big Blue prefers connecting via SSL. Beautiful host, lovely rackmounting.</p><p>PRALINE: Look, I took the liberty of examining that host, and I discovered that the only reason that its lights were blinking in the first place was that there was a flashlight taped inside the case.</p><p>SYSADMIN: Well of course it was taped there. Otherwise it would roll out the back and voom.</p><p>PRALINE: Look matey (picks up cable) this host wouldn't voom if I put four thousand volts through it. It's bleeding offline.</p><p>SYSADMIN: It's not, it's pining.</p><p>PRALINE: It's not pining, it's unplugged. This host is no more. It has ceased to be. Its license has expired. This is a late host. It's a brick. Bereft of electrons, it rests in peace. And if you hadn't taped a flashlight inside the case, the only cycles it would ever see from here on out are re-cyclers. It's dropped out of DNS and unjoined the internet invisible. This is an ex-host.</p><p>SYSADMIN: Well, I'd better replace it then.</p><p>PRALINE: (to camera) If you want to get anything done in this country you've got to complain till you're blue in the mouth.</p><p>SYSADMIN: Sorry guv, we're right out of blade servers.</p><p>PRALINE: I see. I see. I get the picture.</p><p>SYSADMIN: I've got a PC running Windows.</p><p>PRALINE: Does it scale?</p><p>SYSADMIN: Not really, no.</p><p>PRALINE: Well, it's scarcely a replacement, then is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Praline walks into a datacenter.He walks to a desk where a sysadmin tries to hide below a tape rack.PRALINE : Hello , I wish to register a complaint... Hello ? Miss ? SYSADMIN : What do you mean , miss ? PRALINE : Oh , I 'm sorry , I have a cold .
I wish to make a complaint.SYSADMIN : Sorry , we 're closing for patch Tuesday.PRALINE : Never mind that my lad , I wish to make a complain about this hosting service what I leased not half an hour ago from this very datacenter.SYSADMIN : Oh yes , the Kazakhstan Big Blue Blade Server package .
What 's wrong with it ? PRALINE : I 'll tell you what 's wrong with it .
It 's offline , that 's what wrong with it.SYSADMIN : No , no it 's connecting , look ! PRALINE : Look my lad , I know a dead host when I ping one and I 'm pingin ' one right now.SYSADMIN : No , no sir , it 's not dead .
It 's syncing.PRALINE : Syncing ? SYSADMIN : Yeah , remarkable host the Kazakhstan Big Blue , beautiful rackmounting job , innit ? PRALINE : The rackmountin ' do n't enter into it - it 's stone dead.SYSADMIN : No , no - it 's just syncing.PRALINE : All right then , if it 's syncing I 'll sync with it .
( shouts into cabinet ) Hello Khaki !
I 've got a nice piece of Cat 6 for you when you wake up , Khaki ! SYSADMIN : ( jogging rack ) There it blinked.PRALINE : No it did n't .
That was you yankin ' the wire.SYSADMIN : I did not.PRALINE : Yes , you did .
( unplugs wire from cabinet , shouts into the end of the ethernet cable ) Hello Khaki , Khaki ( whips it against counter ) Khaki host , wake up .
Khaki. ( throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor ) Now that 's what I call a dead host.SYSADMIN : No , no it 's stunned.PRALINE : Look my lad , I 've had just about enough of this .
That host is definitely depeered .
And when I leased it not half an hour ago , you assured me that its lack of connectivity wad due to it being tired and shagged out after delisting a porn site.SYSADMIN : It 's probably pining for the fjords.PRALINE : Pining for the fjords , what kind of talk is that ?
Look , why did it refuse to connect the moment I got home ? SYSADMIN : The Kazakhstan Big Blue prefers connecting via SSL .
Beautiful host , lovely rackmounting.PRALINE : Look , I took the liberty of examining that host , and I discovered that the only reason that its lights were blinking in the first place was that there was a flashlight taped inside the case.SYSADMIN : Well of course it was taped there .
Otherwise it would roll out the back and voom.PRALINE : Look matey ( picks up cable ) this host would n't voom if I put four thousand volts through it .
It 's bleeding offline.SYSADMIN : It 's not , it 's pining.PRALINE : It 's not pining , it 's unplugged .
This host is no more .
It has ceased to be .
Its license has expired .
This is a late host .
It 's a brick .
Bereft of electrons , it rests in peace .
And if you had n't taped a flashlight inside the case , the only cycles it would ever see from here on out are re-cyclers .
It 's dropped out of DNS and unjoined the internet invisible .
This is an ex-host.SYSADMIN : Well , I 'd better replace it then.PRALINE : ( to camera ) If you want to get anything done in this country you 've got to complain till you 're blue in the mouth.SYSADMIN : Sorry guv , we 're right out of blade servers.PRALINE : I see .
I see .
I get the picture.SYSADMIN : I 've got a PC running Windows.PRALINE : Does it scale ? SYSADMIN : Not really , no.PRALINE : Well , it 's scarcely a replacement , then is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Praline walks into a datacenter.He walks to a desk where a sysadmin tries to hide below a tape rack.PRALINE: Hello, I wish to register a complaint... Hello? Miss?SYSADMIN: What do you mean, miss?PRALINE: Oh, I'm sorry, I have a cold.
I wish to make a complaint.SYSADMIN: Sorry, we're closing for patch Tuesday.PRALINE: Never mind that my lad, I wish to make a complain about this hosting service what I leased not half an hour ago from this very datacenter.SYSADMIN: Oh yes, the Kazakhstan Big Blue Blade Server package.
What's wrong with it?PRALINE: I'll tell you what's wrong with it.
It's offline, that's what wrong with it.SYSADMIN: No, no it's connecting, look!PRALINE: Look my lad, I know a dead host when I ping one and I'm pingin' one right now.SYSADMIN: No, no sir, it's not dead.
It's syncing.PRALINE: Syncing?SYSADMIN: Yeah, remarkable host the Kazakhstan Big Blue, beautiful rackmounting job, innit?PRALINE: The rackmountin' don't enter into it - it's stone dead.SYSADMIN: No, no - it's just syncing.PRALINE: All right then, if it's syncing I'll sync with it.
(shouts into cabinet) Hello Khaki!
I've got a nice piece of Cat 6 for you when you wake up, Khaki!SYSADMIN: (jogging rack) There it blinked.PRALINE: No it didn't.
That was you yankin' the wire.SYSADMIN: I did not.PRALINE: Yes, you did.
(unplugs wire from cabinet, shouts into the end of the ethernet cable) Hello Khaki, Khaki (whips it against counter) Khaki host, wake up.
Khaki. (throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor) Now that's what I call a dead host.SYSADMIN: No, no it's stunned.PRALINE: Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this.
That host is definitely depeered.
And when I leased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its lack of connectivity wad due to it being tired and shagged out after delisting a porn site.SYSADMIN: It's probably pining for the fjords.PRALINE: Pining for the fjords, what kind of talk is that?
Look, why did it refuse to connect the moment I got home?SYSADMIN: The Kazakhstan Big Blue prefers connecting via SSL.
Beautiful host, lovely rackmounting.PRALINE: Look, I took the liberty of examining that host, and I discovered that the only reason that its lights were blinking in the first place was that there was a flashlight taped inside the case.SYSADMIN: Well of course it was taped there.
Otherwise it would roll out the back and voom.PRALINE: Look matey (picks up cable) this host wouldn't voom if I put four thousand volts through it.
It's bleeding offline.SYSADMIN: It's not, it's pining.PRALINE: It's not pining, it's unplugged.
This host is no more.
It has ceased to be.
Its license has expired.
This is a late host.
It's a brick.
Bereft of electrons, it rests in peace.
And if you hadn't taped a flashlight inside the case, the only cycles it would ever see from here on out are re-cyclers.
It's dropped out of DNS and unjoined the internet invisible.
This is an ex-host.SYSADMIN: Well, I'd better replace it then.PRALINE: (to camera) If you want to get anything done in this country you've got to complain till you're blue in the mouth.SYSADMIN: Sorry guv, we're right out of blade servers.PRALINE: I see.
I see.
I get the picture.SYSADMIN: I've got a PC running Windows.PRALINE: Does it scale?SYSADMIN: Not really, no.PRALINE: Well, it's scarcely a replacement, then is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432934</id>
	<title>Cisco?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>John Chambers thinks he's John Wayne.</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Chambers thinks he 's John Wayne .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Chambers thinks he's John Wayne.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432860</id>
	<title>Niney</title>
	<author>jamesyouwish</author>
	<datestamp>1268226300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Niney n. The amount of drinks it takes to say this word correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Niney n. The amount of drinks it takes to say this word correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niney n. The amount of drinks it takes to say this word correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435216</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1268339040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a PC repairman allow me to explain why Zeus is still around, it is because the OEMs suck ass, that's why. You see ever since XP Sp2 (and some even earlier) the OEMs have been loading PCs with images that have the absolute worst default security policies you can possibly imagine, hell a junior HS student could do better. They set up an obvious username with no password, like "HP\_User" and then go and turn autoupdates to OFF. In fact in 6 years I don't think I've seen an OEM PC with autoupdates activated. Just yesterday I had one cross my desk that the patches only went to SP2, that was...what 7 years ago? Hell no wonder there are so many botnets, the OEMs make it so any script kiddie can own millions of PCs!</p><p>As for TFA, my guess is that many of the C&amp;C servers are hosted in some idoncareistan, where a nice fat bribe will make all those problems go bye bye. Just look at Nigeria, where scamming is practically a noble profession. And it isn't like they can't find plenty of sleazeballs here in the USA that will be happy to do business with them as long as the money is green.</p><p>

Ultimately if we are gonna turn the tide I think it has to start with the OEMs before the customer ever picks up the PC. We need to demand some basic common sense, like having the user pick a password on first launch, having automatic updates set to on as default, and having some rules with regards to the crapware AVs they install, such as having it refuse to start if it is no longer good, so the user won't have a false sense of security. If I had my way it would give the user a list of AVs on first run, including free ones, like Windows 7 did on first start, but since I haven't had any OEM Windows 7 machines cross my desk yet I'm sure the OEMs disabled that as well. But expecting the customer to know their machine is crippled from the factory, as well as the steps to fix it, is just insane when so much can be done at the factory to negate this problem IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a PC repairman allow me to explain why Zeus is still around , it is because the OEMs suck ass , that 's why .
You see ever since XP Sp2 ( and some even earlier ) the OEMs have been loading PCs with images that have the absolute worst default security policies you can possibly imagine , hell a junior HS student could do better .
They set up an obvious username with no password , like " HP \ _User " and then go and turn autoupdates to OFF .
In fact in 6 years I do n't think I 've seen an OEM PC with autoupdates activated .
Just yesterday I had one cross my desk that the patches only went to SP2 , that was...what 7 years ago ?
Hell no wonder there are so many botnets , the OEMs make it so any script kiddie can own millions of PCs ! As for TFA , my guess is that many of the C&amp;C servers are hosted in some idoncareistan , where a nice fat bribe will make all those problems go bye bye .
Just look at Nigeria , where scamming is practically a noble profession .
And it is n't like they ca n't find plenty of sleazeballs here in the USA that will be happy to do business with them as long as the money is green .
Ultimately if we are gon na turn the tide I think it has to start with the OEMs before the customer ever picks up the PC .
We need to demand some basic common sense , like having the user pick a password on first launch , having automatic updates set to on as default , and having some rules with regards to the crapware AVs they install , such as having it refuse to start if it is no longer good , so the user wo n't have a false sense of security .
If I had my way it would give the user a list of AVs on first run , including free ones , like Windows 7 did on first start , but since I have n't had any OEM Windows 7 machines cross my desk yet I 'm sure the OEMs disabled that as well .
But expecting the customer to know their machine is crippled from the factory , as well as the steps to fix it , is just insane when so much can be done at the factory to negate this problem IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a PC repairman allow me to explain why Zeus is still around, it is because the OEMs suck ass, that's why.
You see ever since XP Sp2 (and some even earlier) the OEMs have been loading PCs with images that have the absolute worst default security policies you can possibly imagine, hell a junior HS student could do better.
They set up an obvious username with no password, like "HP\_User" and then go and turn autoupdates to OFF.
In fact in 6 years I don't think I've seen an OEM PC with autoupdates activated.
Just yesterday I had one cross my desk that the patches only went to SP2, that was...what 7 years ago?
Hell no wonder there are so many botnets, the OEMs make it so any script kiddie can own millions of PCs!As for TFA, my guess is that many of the C&amp;C servers are hosted in some idoncareistan, where a nice fat bribe will make all those problems go bye bye.
Just look at Nigeria, where scamming is practically a noble profession.
And it isn't like they can't find plenty of sleazeballs here in the USA that will be happy to do business with them as long as the money is green.
Ultimately if we are gonna turn the tide I think it has to start with the OEMs before the customer ever picks up the PC.
We need to demand some basic common sense, like having the user pick a password on first launch, having automatic updates set to on as default, and having some rules with regards to the crapware AVs they install, such as having it refuse to start if it is no longer good, so the user won't have a false sense of security.
If I had my way it would give the user a list of AVs on first run, including free ones, like Windows 7 did on first start, but since I haven't had any OEM Windows 7 machines cross my desk yet I'm sure the OEMs disabled that as well.
But expecting the customer to know their machine is crippled from the factory, as well as the steps to fix it, is just insane when so much can be done at the factory to negate this problem IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432928</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships, who sold cars to evil customers, who ran car-botnets. The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them, so they couldn't resell the cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships , who sold cars to evil customers , who ran car-botnets .
The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them , so they could n't resell the cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships, who sold cars to evil customers, who ran car-botnets.
The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them, so they couldn't resell the cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433030</id>
	<title>Re:Niney!?</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268227620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's after twelfty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's after twelfty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's after twelfty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433430</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268230740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any system that can reliably take botnets offline can also be (mis)used to reliably take something like wikileaks offline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any system that can reliably take botnets offline can also be ( mis ) used to reliably take something like wikileaks offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any system that can reliably take botnets offline can also be (mis)used to reliably take something like wikileaks offline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432880</id>
	<title>Yay!! KILL THE COMMIES TO HELL AND MOSCOW !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need no stinkin' commies on this here AMERICAN internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need no stinkin ' commies on this here AMERICAN internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need no stinkin' commies on this here AMERICAN internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433592</id>
	<title>No Longer Vigilantism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268232420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past, when this sort of thing has been suggested, the cries of "vigilante" and "lawlessness" were cried from the highest mountaintops, and the lowest swamps of the Internet.  And anyone who actually DID anything was pilloried and run out of town on a rail.</p><p>[sarcasm] What changed, I wonder? [/sarcasm]</p><p>Now that the losses are in the hundreds of millions, in several dozen different currencies, those same voices seem to have lost their enthusiasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , when this sort of thing has been suggested , the cries of " vigilante " and " lawlessness " were cried from the highest mountaintops , and the lowest swamps of the Internet .
And anyone who actually DID anything was pilloried and run out of town on a rail .
[ sarcasm ] What changed , I wonder ?
[ /sarcasm ] Now that the losses are in the hundreds of millions , in several dozen different currencies , those same voices seem to have lost their enthusiasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, when this sort of thing has been suggested, the cries of "vigilante" and "lawlessness" were cried from the highest mountaintops, and the lowest swamps of the Internet.
And anyone who actually DID anything was pilloried and run out of town on a rail.
[sarcasm] What changed, I wonder?
[/sarcasm]Now that the losses are in the hundreds of millions, in several dozen different currencies, those same voices seem to have lost their enthusiasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496</id>
	<title>Windows again</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1268231280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, the summary and the linked article neglect to mention the vulnerable OS.  Once again, it's Windows.  I guess that goes without saying, but it really seems like there's a widespread agreement to refrain from mentioning Microsoft or Windows in articles on viruses and botnets.  Seems to me that mentioning the targets, and how to secure them, would be integral to any such story.  It could be one sentence and a link, fer chrissakes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the summary and the linked article neglect to mention the vulnerable OS .
Once again , it 's Windows .
I guess that goes without saying , but it really seems like there 's a widespread agreement to refrain from mentioning Microsoft or Windows in articles on viruses and botnets .
Seems to me that mentioning the targets , and how to secure them , would be integral to any such story .
It could be one sentence and a link , fer chrissakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the summary and the linked article neglect to mention the vulnerable OS.
Once again, it's Windows.
I guess that goes without saying, but it really seems like there's a widespread agreement to refrain from mentioning Microsoft or Windows in articles on viruses and botnets.
Seems to me that mentioning the targets, and how to secure them, would be integral to any such story.
It could be one sentence and a link, fer chrissakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978</id>
	<title>The short answer? Money.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1268227260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why hasn't this happened even more?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because the spammers and such are paying good money for such "bullet-proof" hosting sites.</p><p>Meanwhile, the more legitimate ISP's don't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has n't this happened even more ? Because the spammers and such are paying good money for such " bullet-proof " hosting sites.Meanwhile , the more legitimate ISP 's do n't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why hasn't this happened even more?Because the spammers and such are paying good money for such "bullet-proof" hosting sites.Meanwhile, the more legitimate ISP's don't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504</id>
	<title>As will become more and more apparent...</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268231340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to truely combat cybercrime is to just cut the connection.</p><p>When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy.  Sure, you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished.  For the most part, not much.</p><p>The key is that if Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or whereever wants to have "Internet freedom" for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences, the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.</p><p>Now, so far it has been impossible to make this happen.  Nobody has cared enough because "well, it is just some virtual land called cyberspace."  For the most part, law enforcement doesn't care if people are robbed in cyberspace - it isn't really their jurisdiction.  There is no global cop that can go anywhere to track down cybercriminals, and in most of the world a request to please go down and arrest someone because they committed a crime somewhere else is met with guffaws and snickers.  So as long as your local law enforcement was willing to turn a blind eye to your activities, you could pretty much get away with anything.</p><p>And believe me, in most of the world today, law enforcement has a lot better things to do than deal with any sort of computer crime.  So there are zero consequences.  Something a lot of people have learned over the last 15 years or so.  Of course a few Unix geeks knew that since 1980 or so.</p><p>Now, if this sticks and if it can be repeated - both of which are highly doubtful - we might actually get somewhere in having some real consequences for bad actions on the Internet.  But I suspect this will all be put back together next week (if not sooner) and there will continue to be zero consequences.  Keep this in mind, because if you annoy someone enough on the Internet there is a chance they already know there are no consequences in most of the world.  Lori Drew is a case in point.  They really wanted to nail her for something, anything.  But the rule of cyberspace wins out in the end.  The physical world has real consequences, the virtual world has only virtual consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to truely combat cybercrime is to just cut the connection.When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy .
Sure , you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished .
For the most part , not much.The key is that if Russia , Bulgaria , Romania or whereever wants to have " Internet freedom " for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences , the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.Now , so far it has been impossible to make this happen .
Nobody has cared enough because " well , it is just some virtual land called cyberspace .
" For the most part , law enforcement does n't care if people are robbed in cyberspace - it is n't really their jurisdiction .
There is no global cop that can go anywhere to track down cybercriminals , and in most of the world a request to please go down and arrest someone because they committed a crime somewhere else is met with guffaws and snickers .
So as long as your local law enforcement was willing to turn a blind eye to your activities , you could pretty much get away with anything.And believe me , in most of the world today , law enforcement has a lot better things to do than deal with any sort of computer crime .
So there are zero consequences .
Something a lot of people have learned over the last 15 years or so .
Of course a few Unix geeks knew that since 1980 or so.Now , if this sticks and if it can be repeated - both of which are highly doubtful - we might actually get somewhere in having some real consequences for bad actions on the Internet .
But I suspect this will all be put back together next week ( if not sooner ) and there will continue to be zero consequences .
Keep this in mind , because if you annoy someone enough on the Internet there is a chance they already know there are no consequences in most of the world .
Lori Drew is a case in point .
They really wanted to nail her for something , anything .
But the rule of cyberspace wins out in the end .
The physical world has real consequences , the virtual world has only virtual consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to truely combat cybercrime is to just cut the connection.When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy.
Sure, you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished.
For the most part, not much.The key is that if Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or whereever wants to have "Internet freedom" for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences, the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.Now, so far it has been impossible to make this happen.
Nobody has cared enough because "well, it is just some virtual land called cyberspace.
"  For the most part, law enforcement doesn't care if people are robbed in cyberspace - it isn't really their jurisdiction.
There is no global cop that can go anywhere to track down cybercriminals, and in most of the world a request to please go down and arrest someone because they committed a crime somewhere else is met with guffaws and snickers.
So as long as your local law enforcement was willing to turn a blind eye to your activities, you could pretty much get away with anything.And believe me, in most of the world today, law enforcement has a lot better things to do than deal with any sort of computer crime.
So there are zero consequences.
Something a lot of people have learned over the last 15 years or so.
Of course a few Unix geeks knew that since 1980 or so.Now, if this sticks and if it can be repeated - both of which are highly doubtful - we might actually get somewhere in having some real consequences for bad actions on the Internet.
But I suspect this will all be put back together next week (if not sooner) and there will continue to be zero consequences.
Keep this in mind, because if you annoy someone enough on the Internet there is a chance they already know there are no consequences in most of the world.
Lori Drew is a case in point.
They really wanted to nail her for something, anything.
But the rule of cyberspace wins out in the end.
The physical world has real consequences, the virtual world has only virtual consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433024</id>
	<title>Tangled memes</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1268227560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Russia, Chuck Norris knocks out your bot net niney times , as he turns seveny.<br>
I smell my karma burning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Russia , Chuck Norris knocks out your bot net niney times , as he turns seveny .
I smell my karma burning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Russia, Chuck Norris knocks out your bot net niney times , as he turns seveny.
I smell my karma burning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436532</id>
	<title>Re:YRO</title>
	<author>jpate</author>
	<datestamp>1268316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mos' def</htmltext>
<tokenext>mos ' def</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mos' def</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433932</id>
	<title>Re:As will become more and more apparent...</title>
	<author>vajorie</author>
	<datestamp>1268235780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy. Sure, you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished. For the most part, not much.
</p><p>
The key is that if Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or whereever wants to have "Internet freedom" for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences, the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.</p><blockquote><div><p>That sounds quite familiar but I cannot... Oh, wait!</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy .
Sure , you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished .
For the most part , not much .
The key is that if Russia , Bulgaria , Romania or whereever wants to have " Internet freedom " for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences , the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.That sounds quite familiar but I can not... Oh , wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you have a country that willingly harbors criminals - just because they are attacking someone else - the problem ceases to be one of law enforcement or diplomacy.
Sure, you can try to send some cops over there and see what can be accomplished.
For the most part, not much.
The key is that if Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or whereever wants to have "Internet freedom" for their citizens where they can do whatever they heck they want without any consequences, the only possible response is for everyone else on the planet to just agree to pull the plug.That sounds quite familiar but I cannot... Oh, wait!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433446</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1268230860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally.</p> </div><p>"We can make money off of it" seems to work for a lot of people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally .
" We can make money off of it " seems to work for a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no reasonable stance that defends the existence or the activities of botnets either legally or morally.
"We can make money off of it" seems to work for a lot of people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432936</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1268226900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISPs that hosted these botnet control centers had their wires cut.  The entire ISP is offline.  None of the companies they send their internet traffic to will talk to them any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISPs that hosted these botnet control centers had their wires cut .
The entire ISP is offline .
None of the companies they send their internet traffic to will talk to them any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISPs that hosted these botnet control centers had their wires cut.
The entire ISP is offline.
None of the companies they send their internet traffic to will talk to them any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433616</id>
	<title>Beowulf cluster</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1268232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>36\% of their highly redundant infrastructure was made unavailable, leaving 64\% of the control servers online and fully capable of servicing the millions of bots under its control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>36 \ % of their highly redundant infrastructure was made unavailable , leaving 64 \ % of the control servers online and fully capable of servicing the millions of bots under its control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36\% of their highly redundant infrastructure was made unavailable, leaving 64\% of the control servers online and fully capable of servicing the millions of bots under its control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433000</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268227440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You suck at reading comprehension, huh? Yes, yes they ere removed from the internet, 'somehow'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You suck at reading comprehension , huh ?
Yes , yes they ere removed from the internet , 'somehow' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You suck at reading comprehension, huh?
Yes, yes they ere removed from the internet, 'somehow'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31441706</id>
	<title>Re:And these ISP's other customers...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268337660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I'm sure they were complicit. Being in the network security line of work, I will state straight out that an ISP sufficiently incompetent so as to *not* know this was going on is also insufficiently competent to keep its network running, or maybe even to build one in the first place.</p><p>Put that together with their location, which is friendly to that sort of thing - especially in exchange for cash - and the case for complicity is pretty well established. Heck, McColo was right here in the United States and while it had a few legit customers who got burned, McColo was established for the sole purpose of providing botnet C&amp;C infrastructure. When major botnet operators are referred to as organized crime, that's no exaggeration. They are highly organized, have money, and are very skilled at building resilient infrastructure, including buying or building supportive ISPs and colo facilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I 'm sure they were complicit .
Being in the network security line of work , I will state straight out that an ISP sufficiently incompetent so as to * not * know this was going on is also insufficiently competent to keep its network running , or maybe even to build one in the first place.Put that together with their location , which is friendly to that sort of thing - especially in exchange for cash - and the case for complicity is pretty well established .
Heck , McColo was right here in the United States and while it had a few legit customers who got burned , McColo was established for the sole purpose of providing botnet C&amp;C infrastructure .
When major botnet operators are referred to as organized crime , that 's no exaggeration .
They are highly organized , have money , and are very skilled at building resilient infrastructure , including buying or building supportive ISPs and colo facilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I'm sure they were complicit.
Being in the network security line of work, I will state straight out that an ISP sufficiently incompetent so as to *not* know this was going on is also insufficiently competent to keep its network running, or maybe even to build one in the first place.Put that together with their location, which is friendly to that sort of thing - especially in exchange for cash - and the case for complicity is pretty well established.
Heck, McColo was right here in the United States and while it had a few legit customers who got burned, McColo was established for the sole purpose of providing botnet C&amp;C infrastructure.
When major botnet operators are referred to as organized crime, that's no exaggeration.
They are highly organized, have money, and are very skilled at building resilient infrastructure, including buying or building supportive ISPs and colo facilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439166</id>
	<title>Re:Windows again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268328120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron. Give your mom root and she'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron .
Give your mom root and she 'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron.
Give your mom root and she'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688</id>
	<title>YRO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268233320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody likes to see crooks get away with being crooks but keep in mind if you are championing the forced removal of content like this, then you are also championing the removal of any content deemed objectionable by a governing body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody likes to see crooks get away with being crooks but keep in mind if you are championing the forced removal of content like this , then you are also championing the removal of any content deemed objectionable by a governing body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody likes to see crooks get away with being crooks but keep in mind if you are championing the forced removal of content like this, then you are also championing the removal of any content deemed objectionable by a governing body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433266</id>
	<title>Re:The short answer? Money.</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1268229300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, the more legitimate ISP's don't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks.</p></div><p>I suspect the "expense" they're afraid to incur would most likely be in the form of legal costs.  Give a decent sysadmin any size list of culprits and he'll script a way to block them within a day, max.  Fighting lawsuits, OTOH, is quite expensive, bogus or otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , the more legitimate ISP 's do n't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks.I suspect the " expense " they 're afraid to incur would most likely be in the form of legal costs .
Give a decent sysadmin any size list of culprits and he 'll script a way to block them within a day , max .
Fighting lawsuits , OTOH , is quite expensive , bogus or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, the more legitimate ISP's don't want to spend the money to block the command/control servers individually on their networks.I suspect the "expense" they're afraid to incur would most likely be in the form of legal costs.
Give a decent sysadmin any size list of culprits and he'll script a way to block them within a day, max.
Fighting lawsuits, OTOH, is quite expensive, bogus or otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436652</id>
	<title>Re:Violation of network neutrality?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268317320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Net neutrality only applies when you don&rsquo;t know what&rsquo;s going on or at least can reasonably argue this.</p><p>If you know someone is spamming, it&rsquo;s a different situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality only applies when you don    t know what    s going on or at least can reasonably argue this.If you know someone is spamming , it    s a different situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality only applies when you don’t know what’s going on or at least can reasonably argue this.If you know someone is spamming, it’s a different situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433242</id>
	<title>Re:Update: Troyak is back online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268229120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is believable.  I got 25\% ~more~ spam on my domains today than any day in the last month.  From the patterns, I suspect they felt obliged to resend some after their outage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is believable .
I got 25 \ % ~ more ~ spam on my domains today than any day in the last month .
From the patterns , I suspect they felt obliged to resend some after their outage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is believable.
I got 25\% ~more~ spam on my domains today than any day in the last month.
From the patterns, I suspect they felt obliged to resend some after their outage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432822</id>
	<title>Wolfram Alpha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember that thing? It's not a search engine though, its a computational knowledege engine. That took off like a lead balloon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that thing ?
It 's not a search engine though , its a computational knowledege engine .
That took off like a lead balloon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that thing?
It's not a search engine though, its a computational knowledege engine.
That took off like a lead balloon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436980</id>
	<title>Re:Windows again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron. Give your mom root and she'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron .
Give your mom root and she 'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Windows has nothing to do with it you moron.
Give your mom root and she'll fuck up her Linux box once more than 10 people use Linux so that malware actually gets written for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432844</id>
	<title>Niney!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure exactly how many Niney is, but it sounds like a lot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure exactly how many Niney is , but it sounds like a lot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure exactly how many Niney is, but it sounds like a lot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433294</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1268229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, you're going to have to repeat that; what happened? Were they somehow removed from the internet?</p></div><p>They were the recipients of a staged compaction of fissile material achieving critical mass and subsequent chain reaction within a projectile arriving from an exospheric source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , you 're going to have to repeat that ; what happened ?
Were they somehow removed from the internet ? They were the recipients of a staged compaction of fissile material achieving critical mass and subsequent chain reaction within a projectile arriving from an exospheric source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, you're going to have to repeat that; what happened?
Were they somehow removed from the internet?They were the recipients of a staged compaction of fissile material achieving critical mass and subsequent chain reaction within a projectile arriving from an exospheric source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433760</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships, who sold cars to evil customers, who ran car-botnets. The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them, so they couldn't resell the cars.</i> </p><p>But that would only stop new cars from driving on the road, not take the evil customer driven ones off "overnight."  No, Troyak and Group 3 were <i>service stations</i> who sold fuel to customers who drove evil cars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships , who sold cars to evil customers , who ran car-botnets .
The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them , so they could n't resell the cars .
But that would only stop new cars from driving on the road , not take the evil customer driven ones off " overnight .
" No , Troyak and Group 3 were service stations who sold fuel to customers who drove evil cars .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Troyak and Group 3 were like car dealerships, who sold cars to evil customers, who ran car-botnets.
The suppliers of Troyak and Group 3 decided to stop supplying cars to them, so they couldn't resell the cars.
But that would only stop new cars from driving on the road, not take the evil customer driven ones off "overnight.
"  No, Troyak and Group 3 were service stations who sold fuel to customers who drove evil cars ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434500</id>
	<title>Re:PININ' for the FJORDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268242020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aw come on mods, the meter may be a tad off (I'm used to the audio-only version) but give this guy his props already.</p><p>That was the best laugh I've had all week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw come on mods , the meter may be a tad off ( I 'm used to the audio-only version ) but give this guy his props already.That was the best laugh I 've had all week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw come on mods, the meter may be a tad off (I'm used to the audio-only version) but give this guy his props already.That was the best laugh I've had all week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436770</id>
	<title>Re:Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268318460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no.  The botnet is merely pining for the fiords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no .
The botnet is merely pining for the fiords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no.
The botnet is merely pining for the fiords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432948</id>
	<title>Violation of network neutrality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Violation of network neutrality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Violation of network neutrality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Violation of network neutrality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433382</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1268230320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses, but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down?</p></div><p>As I understand it, they don't use static IP addresses.  They change their IP addresses frequently.  They use all kinds of tricky schemes to shield their activities.  It sounds like some of their schemes have been figured out lately and successfully attacked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses , but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down ? As I understand it , they do n't use static IP addresses .
They change their IP addresses frequently .
They use all kinds of tricky schemes to shield their activities .
It sounds like some of their schemes have been figured out lately and successfully attacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... presumably that we can also discover their IP addresses, but law enforcement has been unable to bring them down?As I understand it, they don't use static IP addresses.
They change their IP addresses frequently.
They use all kinds of tricky schemes to shield their activities.
It sounds like some of their schemes have been figured out lately and successfully attacked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436292</id>
	<title>Re:PININ' for the FJORDS?!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268312520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse me for a moment, I have to go change my trousers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me for a moment , I have to go change my trousers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me for a moment, I have to go change my trousers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31441706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31437122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_2255252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31437122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31439224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31436748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31441706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31434042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31435216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31433008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_2255252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_2255252.31432830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
