<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_0524250</id>
	<title>The Dark Side of the Web</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268485980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Beneath the web pages indexed by Google lies an online world that few know exists. It's a realm of huge, untapped reserves of valuable information containing sprawling databases, hidden websites and murky forums. It's a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind's biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone. <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web">The deep web and its 'darknets'</a> are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society. The deep web is also the new frontier for those who want to rival Google in the field of search."</i> The melodrama is tempered, though: "The deep web isn&rsquo;t half as strange or sinister as it sounds. In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Beneath the web pages indexed by Google lies an online world that few know exists .
It 's a realm of huge , untapped reserves of valuable information containing sprawling databases , hidden websites and murky forums .
It 's a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind 's biggest problems , but also where criminal syndicates operate , and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed .
Interested ? You 're not alone .
The deep web and its 'darknets ' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online , and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society .
The deep web is also the new frontier for those who want to rival Google in the field of search .
" The melodrama is tempered , though : " The deep web isn    t half as strange or sinister as it sounds .
In computer-science speak , it refers to those portions of the web that , for whatever reason , have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Beneath the web pages indexed by Google lies an online world that few know exists.
It's a realm of huge, untapped reserves of valuable information containing sprawling databases, hidden websites and murky forums.
It's a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind's biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.
Interested? You're not alone.
The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society.
The deep web is also the new frontier for those who want to rival Google in the field of search.
" The melodrama is tempered, though: "The deep web isn’t half as strange or sinister as it sounds.
In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466550</id>
	<title>"Dark Side of the Web" moniker already taken...</title>
	<author>Godskitchen</author>
	<datestamp>1268473920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more commonly known as 4chan... or, "the bottom of the internet."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more commonly known as 4chan... or , " the bottom of the internet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more commonly known as 4chan... or, "the bottom of the internet.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31475422</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268566140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on. If you see somebody being raped keep walking. If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.</p></div><p>See someone being murdered? Keep walking! Great advice, asshole.</p><p>You don't need the police to be able to help out someone in obvious need. Grow a set of balls, psychopath.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see a house being burgled , ignore it and continue on .
If you see somebody being raped keep walking .
If you see a child in trouble , absolutely never go near them.See someone being murdered ?
Keep walking !
Great advice , asshole.You do n't need the police to be able to help out someone in obvious need .
Grow a set of balls , psychopath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on.
If you see somebody being raped keep walking.
If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.See someone being murdered?
Keep walking!
Great advice, asshole.You don't need the police to be able to help out someone in obvious need.
Grow a set of balls, psychopath.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31468996</id>
	<title>One print page...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1268493360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/print" title="pcpro.co.uk">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/print</a> [pcpro.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/print [ pcpro.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/print [pcpro.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467226</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty much ruined it for me</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1268479380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could stumble on that stuff on the 'regular' intertubes too. Although in some places it is more likely than others (e.g. 4chan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could stumble on that stuff on the 'regular ' intertubes too .
Although in some places it is more likely than others ( e.g .
4chan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could stumble on that stuff on the 'regular' intertubes too.
Although in some places it is more likely than others (e.g.
4chan).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467594</id>
	<title>'Dark' web not always a bad thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dark web also refers to items hidden behind password controls, like your bank account details, which google/bing cannot index. More than often, they are 'dark' for a very good reason.</p><p>It doesn't always have to mean nefarious purposes.  Do you want Google indexing your bank account, or your online xtube accounts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dark web also refers to items hidden behind password controls , like your bank account details , which google/bing can not index .
More than often , they are 'dark ' for a very good reason.It does n't always have to mean nefarious purposes .
Do you want Google indexing your bank account , or your online xtube accounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dark web also refers to items hidden behind password controls, like your bank account details, which google/bing cannot index.
More than often, they are 'dark' for a very good reason.It doesn't always have to mean nefarious purposes.
Do you want Google indexing your bank account, or your online xtube accounts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465140</id>
	<title>Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1268507160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they don't index that data (although not necessarily true for some engines). That doesn't mean it's not crawled (and kept for another reasons).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they do n't index that data ( although not necessarily true for some engines ) .
That does n't mean it 's not crawled ( and kept for another reasons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they don't index that data (although not necessarily true for some engines).
That doesn't mean it's not crawled (and kept for another reasons).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here. "Darknets" have been around since the start of the internet, and there's nothing necessarily illicit about it. Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc. And if you're looking at websites rather than places or resources, you haven't even scratched the surface.</p><p>Basically, people like to communicate online, but that doesn't give you (or Google) the right to index it or even access it just 'cos it's on the internet - whether you like it or not, it's their communications not yours. Don't see value in it? Don't spend your time there. Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details. Just like IRL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .
" Darknets " have been around since the start of the internet , and there 's nothing necessarily illicit about it .
Sure , some people take advantage of the privacy , just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do , but that does n't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc .
And if you 're looking at websites rather than places or resources , you have n't even scratched the surface.Basically , people like to communicate online , but that does n't give you ( or Google ) the right to index it or even access it just 'cos it 's on the internet - whether you like it or not , it 's their communications not yours .
Do n't see value in it ?
Do n't spend your time there .
Think it 's illegal ?
Call the cops with details .
Just like IRL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.
"Darknets" have been around since the start of the internet, and there's nothing necessarily illicit about it.
Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc.
And if you're looking at websites rather than places or resources, you haven't even scratched the surface.Basically, people like to communicate online, but that doesn't give you (or Google) the right to index it or even access it just 'cos it's on the internet - whether you like it or not, it's their communications not yours.
Don't see value in it?
Don't spend your time there.
Think it's illegal?
Call the cops with details.
Just like IRL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464992</id>
	<title>Must be that time of year again</title>
	<author>MattGWU</author>
	<datestamp>1268506140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every 12, 16 months or so I go "Oh yeah, Freenet exists...I should check it out again." But every time, I can't answer the question: Is there anything actually HERE?</p><p>Freenet: Is there actually anything worthwhile on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every 12 , 16 months or so I go " Oh yeah , Freenet exists...I should check it out again .
" But every time , I ca n't answer the question : Is there anything actually HERE ? Freenet : Is there actually anything worthwhile on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every 12, 16 months or so I go "Oh yeah, Freenet exists...I should check it out again.
" But every time, I can't answer the question: Is there anything actually HERE?Freenet: Is there actually anything worthwhile on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465244</id>
	<title>Darkweb</title>
	<author>LlamaZorz</author>
	<datestamp>1268507880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Darknets were private and encrypted vpn based file sharing systems.  They work based on invites and trust.</p><p>I think the author meant Darkweb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Darknets were private and encrypted vpn based file sharing systems .
They work based on invites and trust.I think the author meant Darkweb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Darknets were private and encrypted vpn based file sharing systems.
They work based on invites and trust.I think the author meant Darkweb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</id>
	<title>It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Artem Tashkinov</author>
	<datestamp>1268490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video - there's next to zero informational value in this undernet. As someone once said "Information wants to be free" and if it isn't let it die.</p><p>The real problem which this article doesn't even touch is that sometimes it's getting very hard to find the information buried in millions of pages Google returns to your query.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen and heard this 'hidden ' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I 've ever encountered are trafficking ( child ) porn , software , audio and video - there 's next to zero informational value in this undernet .
As someone once said " Information wants to be free " and if it is n't let it die.The real problem which this article does n't even touch is that sometimes it 's getting very hard to find the information buried in millions of pages Google returns to your query .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video - there's next to zero informational value in this undernet.
As someone once said "Information wants to be free" and if it isn't let it die.The real problem which this article doesn't even touch is that sometimes it's getting very hard to find the information buried in millions of pages Google returns to your query.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465618</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel?</title>
	<author>catman</author>
	<datestamp>1268510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal\_September" title="wikipedia.org">always September.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is always September .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is always September.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463522</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loads of stuff is hidden on purpose...config files, site member info, etc etc.  I "accidentally hacked" a law company's MySQL DB once because their phpmyadmin <i>wasn't</i> hidden properly and showed up on a Google search for an obscure error message I searched for.  Hidden-From-Google != Nasty-Child-Pornographers......</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loads of stuff is hidden on purpose...config files , site member info , etc etc .
I " accidentally hacked " a law company 's MySQL DB once because their phpmyadmin was n't hidden properly and showed up on a Google search for an obscure error message I searched for .
Hidden-From-Google ! = Nasty-Child-Pornographers..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loads of stuff is hidden on purpose...config files, site member info, etc etc.
I "accidentally hacked" a law company's MySQL DB once because their phpmyadmin wasn't hidden properly and showed up on a Google search for an obscure error message I searched for.
Hidden-From-Google != Nasty-Child-Pornographers......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464072</id>
	<title>here is an analogy of the danger to consider</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1268497500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, this is an analogy using an unrelated but example with hindsight already established, unlike what this article is about.</p><p>The idea of the stock market was to allow people in invest in companies they believed in, sort of a put your money where you mouth is vote.<br>But due to the higher and higher levels of abstraction and manipulation at these higher levels of abstraction, putting your money in companies you believed in, is no longer what moves the market. Instead there have been some very bad things resulting in the manipulations of the markets at these higher abstract levels.<br>You might not even know where your investment is being put, had you handed it over to someone else to do for you, financial institutes and packages. Examples of very bad results include The Trillion Dollar Bet that drained Southeast Asia, including Indonesia (cia reported 88\% Muslim) and gave rise to the repercussions of 911 (don't argue - follow the money instead, Worldcom, Enron, etc. some of the losers in the gamble) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard\_Madoff" title="wikipedia.org">Bernard Madoff's</a> [wikipedia.org] multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.</p><p>So this deep dark net.... it may not be so bottom line (money) connected, or maybe some of it is with insider trading info, but the results eventually show in the open.<br>And clearly the saying, "what we make we can break" applies here regarding anonymity, a lock that can be broken, as locks are for honest people.</p><p>Its not like governments don't have their own means of inside communications, of which if the public knew what all was communicated, there would be opposition as well.<br>It comes down to what humans will do, good or bad, where the only difference is in what tools they use to do so.</p><p>And the higher the level of abstraction being used<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the more damage it can result in. Good things generally don't require such sneaking around, spy vs. spy...  And in the virtual world, what does it matter really matter, unless it has real world results?</p><p>At what point in technology advancement will thought police enter the picture? Or perhaps that question should be in the past tense.</p><p>What does the article really accomplish? More players in the spy vs. spy game. Absolutely nothing more! Advertising the dark web.<br>Why increase the number of players?</p><p>The solution to the trillion dollar bet was to release the formula used into the public hands, effectively nullifying its ability to be used in such a damaging manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , this is an analogy using an unrelated but example with hindsight already established , unlike what this article is about.The idea of the stock market was to allow people in invest in companies they believed in , sort of a put your money where you mouth is vote.But due to the higher and higher levels of abstraction and manipulation at these higher levels of abstraction , putting your money in companies you believed in , is no longer what moves the market .
Instead there have been some very bad things resulting in the manipulations of the markets at these higher abstract levels.You might not even know where your investment is being put , had you handed it over to someone else to do for you , financial institutes and packages .
Examples of very bad results include The Trillion Dollar Bet that drained Southeast Asia , including Indonesia ( cia reported 88 \ % Muslim ) and gave rise to the repercussions of 911 ( do n't argue - follow the money instead , Worldcom , Enron , etc .
some of the losers in the gamble ) and Bernard Madoff 's [ wikipedia.org ] multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.So this deep dark net.... it may not be so bottom line ( money ) connected , or maybe some of it is with insider trading info , but the results eventually show in the open.And clearly the saying , " what we make we can break " applies here regarding anonymity , a lock that can be broken , as locks are for honest people.Its not like governments do n't have their own means of inside communications , of which if the public knew what all was communicated , there would be opposition as well.It comes down to what humans will do , good or bad , where the only difference is in what tools they use to do so.And the higher the level of abstraction being used ... the more damage it can result in .
Good things generally do n't require such sneaking around , spy vs. spy... And in the virtual world , what does it matter really matter , unless it has real world results ? At what point in technology advancement will thought police enter the picture ?
Or perhaps that question should be in the past tense.What does the article really accomplish ?
More players in the spy vs. spy game .
Absolutely nothing more !
Advertising the dark web.Why increase the number of players ? The solution to the trillion dollar bet was to release the formula used into the public hands , effectively nullifying its ability to be used in such a damaging manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, this is an analogy using an unrelated but example with hindsight already established, unlike what this article is about.The idea of the stock market was to allow people in invest in companies they believed in, sort of a put your money where you mouth is vote.But due to the higher and higher levels of abstraction and manipulation at these higher levels of abstraction, putting your money in companies you believed in, is no longer what moves the market.
Instead there have been some very bad things resulting in the manipulations of the markets at these higher abstract levels.You might not even know where your investment is being put, had you handed it over to someone else to do for you, financial institutes and packages.
Examples of very bad results include The Trillion Dollar Bet that drained Southeast Asia, including Indonesia (cia reported 88\% Muslim) and gave rise to the repercussions of 911 (don't argue - follow the money instead, Worldcom, Enron, etc.
some of the losers in the gamble) and Bernard Madoff's [wikipedia.org] multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.So this deep dark net.... it may not be so bottom line (money) connected, or maybe some of it is with insider trading info, but the results eventually show in the open.And clearly the saying, "what we make we can break" applies here regarding anonymity, a lock that can be broken, as locks are for honest people.Its not like governments don't have their own means of inside communications, of which if the public knew what all was communicated, there would be opposition as well.It comes down to what humans will do, good or bad, where the only difference is in what tools they use to do so.And the higher the level of abstraction being used ... the more damage it can result in.
Good things generally don't require such sneaking around, spy vs. spy...  And in the virtual world, what does it matter really matter, unless it has real world results?At what point in technology advancement will thought police enter the picture?
Or perhaps that question should be in the past tense.What does the article really accomplish?
More players in the spy vs. spy game.
Absolutely nothing more!
Advertising the dark web.Why increase the number of players?The solution to the trillion dollar bet was to release the formula used into the public hands, effectively nullifying its ability to be used in such a damaging manner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464616</id>
	<title>Bottom line</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268502660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the bottom line is there is more private data then public data floating around.</p><p>Go figure. *snooze*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the bottom line is there is more private data then public data floating around.Go figure .
* snooze *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the bottom line is there is more private data then public data floating around.Go figure.
*snooze*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464788</id>
	<title>Don't be fooled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268504520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darknets were invented by physicists to account for a discrepancy in the equations for global entropy.<br>Now that Hawking has shown that black holes don't remove information from the universe after all, the theoretical requirement for darknets no longer exists.</p><p>Almost as outrageous are recent attempts to rationalize cat-5 cabling woes using so called 'string' theory, conveniently unverifiable because their FORTRAN compilers don't support more that 7 dimensions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darknets were invented by physicists to account for a discrepancy in the equations for global entropy.Now that Hawking has shown that black holes do n't remove information from the universe after all , the theoretical requirement for darknets no longer exists.Almost as outrageous are recent attempts to rationalize cat-5 cabling woes using so called 'string ' theory , conveniently unverifiable because their FORTRAN compilers do n't support more that 7 dimensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darknets were invented by physicists to account for a discrepancy in the equations for global entropy.Now that Hawking has shown that black holes don't remove information from the universe after all, the theoretical requirement for darknets no longer exists.Almost as outrageous are recent attempts to rationalize cat-5 cabling woes using so called 'string' theory, conveniently unverifiable because their FORTRAN compilers don't support more that 7 dimensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466708</id>
	<title>I know a place</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1268475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where all the junkies go.<br>Where everything is fast<br>And everyone gets slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where all the junkies go.Where everything is fastAnd everyone gets slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where all the junkies go.Where everything is fastAnd everyone gets slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464806</id>
	<title>Slow news day?</title>
	<author>Don Faulkner</author>
	<datestamp>1268504640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It must be a slow news day for something so technical to show up as a news article.

But then again, the article has all of the necessary alarmist features, so I guess they had to let it through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be a slow news day for something so technical to show up as a news article .
But then again , the article has all of the necessary alarmist features , so I guess they had to let it through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be a slow news day for something so technical to show up as a news article.
But then again, the article has all of the necessary alarmist features, so I guess they had to let it through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31473574</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268595420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was molested, I do understand the effects and I completely agree with what ObsessiveMathsFreak is saying. It is, as you say, about sick people doing sick things to kids but mass hysterical about child pornography on the net only leads to politicians pandering to people's fears and bringing in ridiculous laws that encroach on everyone's freedom in order to get themselves re-elected. It's so easy to pass laws that tear down all the rights that civilisation has built up over the centuries and then claim that something is being done; it's so much harder to actually put money into proper policing and proper solutions that will target the creators of child porn as well as molesters and rapists themselves. While I agree with Brian Ribbon that child porn is not always strictly speaking molestation, that is the context in which most people understand it. In this sense child pornography is a symptom of the real problem - child abuse and molestation. Even if all online images were removed that would not end the problem. Becoming irrational and hysterical about the symptom does not help those being abused; it only damages us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was molested , I do understand the effects and I completely agree with what ObsessiveMathsFreak is saying .
It is , as you say , about sick people doing sick things to kids but mass hysterical about child pornography on the net only leads to politicians pandering to people 's fears and bringing in ridiculous laws that encroach on everyone 's freedom in order to get themselves re-elected .
It 's so easy to pass laws that tear down all the rights that civilisation has built up over the centuries and then claim that something is being done ; it 's so much harder to actually put money into proper policing and proper solutions that will target the creators of child porn as well as molesters and rapists themselves .
While I agree with Brian Ribbon that child porn is not always strictly speaking molestation , that is the context in which most people understand it .
In this sense child pornography is a symptom of the real problem - child abuse and molestation .
Even if all online images were removed that would not end the problem .
Becoming irrational and hysterical about the symptom does not help those being abused ; it only damages us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was molested, I do understand the effects and I completely agree with what ObsessiveMathsFreak is saying.
It is, as you say, about sick people doing sick things to kids but mass hysterical about child pornography on the net only leads to politicians pandering to people's fears and bringing in ridiculous laws that encroach on everyone's freedom in order to get themselves re-elected.
It's so easy to pass laws that tear down all the rights that civilisation has built up over the centuries and then claim that something is being done; it's so much harder to actually put money into proper policing and proper solutions that will target the creators of child porn as well as molesters and rapists themselves.
While I agree with Brian Ribbon that child porn is not always strictly speaking molestation, that is the context in which most people understand it.
In this sense child pornography is a symptom of the real problem - child abuse and molestation.
Even if all online images were removed that would not end the problem.
Becoming irrational and hysterical about the symptom does not help those being abused; it only damages us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463652</id>
	<title>This Article was Predicted</title>
	<author>ZirconCode</author>
	<datestamp>1268492940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What have you Done!</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/591/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/591/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Now the darknetz are doomed !11!!!!1!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What have you Done ! http : //xkcd.com/591/ [ xkcd.com ] Now the darknetz are doomed ! 11 ! ! !
! 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What have you Done!http://xkcd.com/591/ [xkcd.com]Now the darknetz are doomed !11!!!
!1!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464708</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1268503620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.</p><p>If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public. Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.</p><p>If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly. If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights , I disagree with things being " off limits " just because it 's implied.If you put data on the internet which is n't access protected or encrypted , then like it or not it is accessible to the public .
Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a " please do n't read me " sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus ; sure it 's a common courtesy to obey the label , but you ca n't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone does n't.If you want data to be on the internet but private , protect it properly .
If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it 's defence then do n't come complaining when it gets looked at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public.
Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly.
If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463970</id>
	<title>Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268496300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once I wanted to see if my DansGuardian installation was working properly, so I typed "sex" in to Google. One of the ads that came up was from eBay. It said, "Looking for sex? Find it on eBay!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once I wanted to see if my DansGuardian installation was working properly , so I typed " sex " in to Google .
One of the ads that came up was from eBay .
It said , " Looking for sex ?
Find it on eBay !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once I wanted to see if my DansGuardian installation was working properly, so I typed "sex" in to Google.
One of the ads that came up was from eBay.
It said, "Looking for sex?
Find it on eBay!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464670</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268503140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem is that it offends people who love reading about these stories. Those who are not offended enough to really care will still go along with those who do for fear of being targeted.  We live in a democracy, ergo the will of the vocal minority will make it illegal. Moreover, this same will leads to draconian restrictions and state surveillance of the internet and indeed the general population.</p><p>The "problem" here is less the child pornographers than it is the people who go into irrational emotional meltdowns whenever someone mentions the password("pedophiles") and who then proceed in their hysteria to tear down the great society that has been built over the last 200 years. Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance. These crusaders on the other hand are a direct and immediate threat to our way of life--or at least what our way of life used to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people , what is the problem ? The problem is that it offends people who love reading about these stories .
Those who are not offended enough to really care will still go along with those who do for fear of being targeted .
We live in a democracy , ergo the will of the vocal minority will make it illegal .
Moreover , this same will leads to draconian restrictions and state surveillance of the internet and indeed the general population.The " problem " here is less the child pornographers than it is the people who go into irrational emotional meltdowns whenever someone mentions the password ( " pedophiles " ) and who then proceed in their hysteria to tear down the great society that has been built over the last 200 years .
Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance .
These crusaders on the other hand are a direct and immediate threat to our way of life--or at least what our way of life used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?The problem is that it offends people who love reading about these stories.
Those who are not offended enough to really care will still go along with those who do for fear of being targeted.
We live in a democracy, ergo the will of the vocal minority will make it illegal.
Moreover, this same will leads to draconian restrictions and state surveillance of the internet and indeed the general population.The "problem" here is less the child pornographers than it is the people who go into irrational emotional meltdowns whenever someone mentions the password("pedophiles") and who then proceed in their hysteria to tear down the great society that has been built over the last 200 years.
Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance.
These crusaders on the other hand are a direct and immediate threat to our way of life--or at least what our way of life used to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530</id>
	<title>Time Travel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says it was " Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15 : 47 " .
Unless I 've missed something , we 're still in March 2010.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47".
Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463592</id>
	<title>the dark side of man'kind'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at least 1000 years worth. it's in the process of being 'sent back' now.</p><p>all of these earthquakes (many many more than are under reported on cnn), there must be a volcano or 2 in there somewhere.</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators. the newclear powered big flash is happening now, as we continue to pretend. see you on the other side of it? (a 1000 years of light?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at least 1000 years worth .
it 's in the process of being 'sent back ' now.all of these earthquakes ( many many more than are under reported on cnn ) , there must be a volcano or 2 in there somewhere.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators .
the newclear powered big flash is happening now , as we continue to pretend .
see you on the other side of it ?
( a 1000 years of light ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least 1000 years worth.
it's in the process of being 'sent back' now.all of these earthquakes (many many more than are under reported on cnn), there must be a volcano or 2 in there somewhere.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators.
the newclear powered big flash is happening now, as we continue to pretend.
see you on the other side of it?
(a 1000 years of light?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465428</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel?</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1268509320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; <i>The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...</i>
<br> <br>
You need to spend more time looking into the info available on the darknets then, clearly. You <i>have</i> missed something. The truth is out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The article says it was " Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15 : 47 " .
Unless I 've missed something , we 're still in March 2010.. . You need to spend more time looking into the info available on the darknets then , clearly .
You have missed something .
The truth is out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47".
Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...
 
You need to spend more time looking into the info available on the darknets then, clearly.
You have missed something.
The truth is out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463638</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He used a time machine to travel to the near-future where the even more scary laws coming up in the next few months get dropped because they got abused.</p><p>Hurray for non-retroactive laws... or some..thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He used a time machine to travel to the near-future where the even more scary laws coming up in the next few months get dropped because they got abused.Hurray for non-retroactive laws... or some..thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He used a time machine to travel to the near-future where the even more scary laws coming up in the next few months get dropped because they got abused.Hurray for non-retroactive laws... or some..thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</id>
	<title>interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268489640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA:</p><p>&gt;terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone.</p><p>No, actually, speak for yourself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : &gt; terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed .
Interested ? You 're not alone.No , actually , speak for yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA:&gt;terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.
Interested? You're not alone.No, actually, speak for yourself!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463582</id>
	<title>Why include Deep Web?</title>
	<author>BarryNorton</author>
	<datestamp>1268492160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Darknets are a concern. What is the link with the Deep Web? The only connection seems to be that they're both unindexed by search engines.
<br>
<br>
I thought the article might get to the point by the last page, but it was still talking about child protection and terrorism (in company databases???)

I had wondered whether this confusion was down to an incautious academic, but the doesn't seem to suggest it: <a href="http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/" title="arizona.edu">http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/</a> [arizona.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Darknets are a concern .
What is the link with the Deep Web ?
The only connection seems to be that they 're both unindexed by search engines .
I thought the article might get to the point by the last page , but it was still talking about child protection and terrorism ( in company databases ? ? ?
) I had wondered whether this confusion was down to an incautious academic , but the does n't seem to suggest it : http : //ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/ [ arizona.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darknets are a concern.
What is the link with the Deep Web?
The only connection seems to be that they're both unindexed by search engines.
I thought the article might get to the point by the last page, but it was still talking about child protection and terrorism (in company databases???
)

I had wondered whether this confusion was down to an incautious academic, but the doesn't seem to suggest it: http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/ [arizona.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464000</id>
	<title>Pretty much ruined it for me</title>
	<author>Travoltus</author>
	<datestamp>1268496600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking about exploring those 'darknets' but child porn? I don't even want my browser pre-caching its way into those websites much less directly stumble onto one. At least I was warned. Anyone foolish enough to go there can't expect to feel like a victim if they get caught in a dragnet for showing up on a bad site's web access log.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking about exploring those 'darknets ' but child porn ?
I do n't even want my browser pre-caching its way into those websites much less directly stumble onto one .
At least I was warned .
Anyone foolish enough to go there ca n't expect to feel like a victim if they get caught in a dragnet for showing up on a bad site 's web access log .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking about exploring those 'darknets' but child porn?
I don't even want my browser pre-caching its way into those websites much less directly stumble onto one.
At least I was warned.
Anyone foolish enough to go there can't expect to feel like a victim if they get caught in a dragnet for showing up on a bad site's web access log.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465484</id>
	<title>Undernet</title>
	<author>Nethead</author>
	<datestamp>1268509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is the new term for IPv6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is the new term for IPv6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is the new term for IPv6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464266</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eye of the beholder eg. perspective</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eye of the beholder eg .
perspective</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eye of the beholder eg.
perspective</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463506</id>
	<title>I know a place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[ominous music, thunder and lightning]<br>A dark and foreboding place with over 5000 pages of scientifically useful information with more than 60000 links between them, all craftily hidden<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>[suddenly the music stops]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... behind a robots.txt file.  Hmm.  Not so interesting.</p><p>Actually, it's not that dark or foreboding, it would just be a pain if Google tried to index it all because the algorithm they use would mean the key pages for a particular item (i.e. where items were actually defined) would end up down the ranking list because of the way that the links work in this particular dataset.  The top pages of the site are indexed and people can use the specialized search tools there to find what they are looking for, or they can hop directly to an entry using a predictable URL if they know its name.</p><p>Oh, and if a bot wants to ignore the robots.txt file they can get away with it for a little while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then they get tossed into a tarpit.  [Queue the ominous music again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... BWHAHAHAHA!]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ominous music , thunder and lightning ] A dark and foreboding place with over 5000 pages of scientifically useful information with more than 60000 links between them , all craftily hidden ... [ suddenly the music stops ] ... behind a robots.txt file .
Hmm. Not so interesting.Actually , it 's not that dark or foreboding , it would just be a pain if Google tried to index it all because the algorithm they use would mean the key pages for a particular item ( i.e .
where items were actually defined ) would end up down the ranking list because of the way that the links work in this particular dataset .
The top pages of the site are indexed and people can use the specialized search tools there to find what they are looking for , or they can hop directly to an entry using a predictable URL if they know its name.Oh , and if a bot wants to ignore the robots.txt file they can get away with it for a little while ... and then they get tossed into a tarpit .
[ Queue the ominous music again .. .
BWHAHAHAHA ! ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[ominous music, thunder and lightning]A dark and foreboding place with over 5000 pages of scientifically useful information with more than 60000 links between them, all craftily hidden ...[suddenly the music stops] ... behind a robots.txt file.
Hmm.  Not so interesting.Actually, it's not that dark or foreboding, it would just be a pain if Google tried to index it all because the algorithm they use would mean the key pages for a particular item (i.e.
where items were actually defined) would end up down the ranking list because of the way that the links work in this particular dataset.
The top pages of the site are indexed and people can use the specialized search tools there to find what they are looking for, or they can hop directly to an entry using a predictable URL if they know its name.Oh, and if a bot wants to ignore the robots.txt file they can get away with it for a little while ... and then they get tossed into a tarpit.
[Queue the ominous music again ...
BWHAHAHAHA!]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463922</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>PietjeJantje</author>
	<datestamp>1268495880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this comment modded Insightful when the quote has been manipulated to give it another meaning?<p><div class="quote"><p>It&rsquo;s a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind&rsquo;s biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.<br> <br>

At the same time, the underground web is the best hope for those who want to escape the bonds of totalitarian state censorship, and share their ideas or experiences with the outside world.<br> <br>

Interested? You&rsquo;re not alone.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this comment modded Insightful when the quote has been manipulated to give it another meaning ? It    s a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind    s biggest problems , but also where criminal syndicates operate , and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed .
At the same time , the underground web is the best hope for those who want to escape the bonds of totalitarian state censorship , and share their ideas or experiences with the outside world .
Interested ? You    re not alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this comment modded Insightful when the quote has been manipulated to give it another meaning?It’s a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind’s biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.
At the same time, the underground web is the best hope for those who want to escape the bonds of totalitarian state censorship, and share their ideas or experiences with the outside world.
Interested? You’re not alone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464682</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel?</title>
	<author>Smauler</author>
	<datestamp>1268503260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have missed something.  There's plenty of available information on time travel in the dark side of the web, or at least there will be in 6 months time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have missed something .
There 's plenty of available information on time travel in the dark side of the web , or at least there will be in 6 months time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have missed something.
There's plenty of available information on time travel in the dark side of the web, or at least there will be in 6 months time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31468876</id>
	<title>Fravia's Research</title>
	<author>not\_hylas( )</author>
	<datestamp>1268492340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fravia's Research:</p><p><a href="http://www.searchlores.org/" title="searchlores.org">http://www.searchlores.org/</a> [searchlores.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm" title="searchlores.org">http://www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm</a> [searchlores.org]</p><p>He was a great guy - it's his "fan club" I couldn't stand.<br>Watch yourself on the links to some of the "discussion boards".</p><p>There's some really good knowledge in what he left us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fravia 's Research : http : //www.searchlores.org/ [ searchlores.org ] http : //www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm [ searchlores.org ] He was a great guy - it 's his " fan club " I could n't stand.Watch yourself on the links to some of the " discussion boards " .There 's some really good knowledge in what he left us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fravia's Research:http://www.searchlores.org/ [searchlores.org]http://www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm [searchlores.org]He was a great guy - it's his "fan club" I couldn't stand.Watch yourself on the links to some of the "discussion boards".There's some really good knowledge in what he left us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810</id>
	<title>What is the problem?</title>
	<author>Brian Ribbon</author>
	<datestamp>1268494440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?</p><p>The vast majority of people who use onion routing are very cautious people, so very few will be stupid enough to leave a trail which could identify them (such as a payment) as doing anything which is seriously controversial or illegal. It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.</p><p>If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.</p><p>The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents. Instead, politicians and police chiefs tend to focus on matters which score politicial points and win votes; parents are not an acceptable target because they constitute a major component of the electorate. Claming to fight child pornography is much easier for politicians and police chiefs, as they will not lose significant support and they can easily claim a victory without any risk of being exposed as liars; after all, who is going to check the evidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people , what is the problem ? The vast majority of people who use onion routing are very cautious people , so very few will be stupid enough to leave a trail which could identify them ( such as a payment ) as doing anything which is seriously controversial or illegal .
It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.If somebody produced child pornography as a " hobby " ( instead of for profit , which would result in a swift arrest anyway ) , it 's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it .
So again , anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem , nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child .
If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse , they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents .
Instead , politicians and police chiefs tend to focus on matters which score politicial points and win votes ; parents are not an acceptable target because they constitute a major component of the electorate .
Claming to fight child pornography is much easier for politicians and police chiefs , as they will not lose significant support and they can easily claim a victory without any risk of being exposed as liars ; after all , who is going to check the evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?The vast majority of people who use onion routing are very cautious people, so very few will be stupid enough to leave a trail which could identify them (such as a payment) as doing anything which is seriously controversial or illegal.
It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it.
So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child.
If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents.
Instead, politicians and police chiefs tend to focus on matters which score politicial points and win votes; parents are not an acceptable target because they constitute a major component of the electorate.
Claming to fight child pornography is much easier for politicians and police chiefs, as they will not lose significant support and they can easily claim a victory without any risk of being exposed as liars; after all, who is going to check the evidence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463446</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>X-Power</author>
	<datestamp>1268490060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you just misspell in fear of "homeland security"?<br>
<br>
In that case, don't you think quoting the text with proper spelling kinda foiled your plans?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you just misspell in fear of " homeland security " ?
In that case , do n't you think quoting the text with proper spelling kinda foiled your plans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you just misspell in fear of "homeland security"?
In that case, don't you think quoting the text with proper spelling kinda foiled your plans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590</id>
	<title>About Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society</p></div><p>Corporations, wealthy individuals and people in power keep their right to privacy. That's not good for the "safety of society". See the ACTA negotiation. Most of the calls about the future of society are made in a non transparent way, by corporations, the psychopaths that run them and corrupt politicians. If I don't keep my right to privacy ( and this looks like a lost cause) then I want them to lose it as well. I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The deep web and its 'darknets ' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online , and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of societyCorporations , wealthy individuals and people in power keep their right to privacy .
That 's not good for the " safety of society " .
See the ACTA negotiation .
Most of the calls about the future of society are made in a non transparent way , by corporations , the psychopaths that run them and corrupt politicians .
If I do n't keep my right to privacy ( and this looks like a lost cause ) then I want them to lose it as well .
I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board .
I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database .
I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of societyCorporations, wealthy individuals and people in power keep their right to privacy.
That's not good for the "safety of society".
See the ACTA negotiation.
Most of the calls about the future of society are made in a non transparent way, by corporations, the psychopaths that run them and corrupt politicians.
If I don't keep my right to privacy ( and this looks like a lost cause) then I want them to lose it as well.
I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board.
I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database.
I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268504640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details."</p><p>You: "Officer, I was interested in these so called 'dark nets' so looking around I happened to find a website with child porn on it.  Clicking about the site I found there were literally hundreds of images so I thought I best report it to the police."</p><p>Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly.  Enjoy your 25 years in prison."</p><p>I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on.  If you see somebody being raped keep walking.  If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.  The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Think it 's illegal ?
Call the cops with details .
" You : " Officer , I was interested in these so called 'dark nets ' so looking around I happened to find a website with child porn on it .
Clicking about the site I found there were literally hundreds of images so I thought I best report it to the police .
" Police : " Please stay by your computer and we 'll be around to arrest you shortly .
Enjoy your 25 years in prison .
" I think you need to review the " Do n't talk to the police " video : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6wXkI4t7nuc [ youtube.com ] If you see a house being burgled , ignore it and continue on .
If you see somebody being raped keep walking .
If you see a child in trouble , absolutely never go near them .
The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Think it's illegal?
Call the cops with details.
"You: "Officer, I was interested in these so called 'dark nets' so looking around I happened to find a website with child porn on it.
Clicking about the site I found there were literally hundreds of images so I thought I best report it to the police.
"Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly.
Enjoy your 25 years in prison.
"I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on.
If you see somebody being raped keep walking.
If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.
The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464290</id>
	<title>Deep/dark web has been done, many times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy cow, people have been 'mining' the 'deep' 'dark' web for years. It's been the 'next frontier' for a decade. 'Darknet' has been a mysterious and edgy term for a private network for a long time. The VPN I setup last week is a darknet, I suppose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q='deep+web'+site\%3Aslashdot.org" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q='deep+web'+site\%3Aslashdot.org</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy cow , people have been 'mining ' the 'deep ' 'dark ' web for years .
It 's been the 'next frontier ' for a decade .
'Darknet ' has been a mysterious and edgy term for a private network for a long time .
The VPN I setup last week is a darknet , I suppose ...http : //www.google.com/search ? num = 100&amp;hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;q = 'deep + web ' + site \ % 3Aslashdot.org [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy cow, people have been 'mining' the 'deep' 'dark' web for years.
It's been the 'next frontier' for a decade.
'Darknet' has been a mysterious and edgy term for a private network for a long time.
The VPN I setup last week is a darknet, I suppose ...http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q='deep+web'+site\%3Aslashdot.org [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463422</id>
	<title>Been there, done that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268489880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the Metaverse, created by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash. We now know it as Second Life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the Metaverse , created by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash .
We now know it as Second Life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the Metaverse, created by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash.
We now know it as Second Life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463794</id>
	<title>Re:About Privacy</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1268494320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you ask for is worthless without any way to reliably verify it. The real answer is true privacy for all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you ask for is worthless without any way to reliably verify it .
The real answer is true privacy for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you ask for is worthless without any way to reliably verify it.
The real answer is true privacy for all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464134</id>
	<title>BBS, IRC</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you still remember how to use those BBSs, the IRCs, then you can get back into the 'darknet' world I guess, though today it is also about appearing/disappering websites and botnets.  Botnets like Zeus got that whole 'FreeNet' idea and have their own implementation, only it's not exactly free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you still remember how to use those BBSs , the IRCs , then you can get back into the 'darknet ' world I guess , though today it is also about appearing/disappering websites and botnets .
Botnets like Zeus got that whole 'FreeNet ' idea and have their own implementation , only it 's not exactly free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you still remember how to use those BBSs, the IRCs, then you can get back into the 'darknet' world I guess, though today it is also about appearing/disappering websites and botnets.
Botnets like Zeus got that whole 'FreeNet' idea and have their own implementation, only it's not exactly free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464606</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268502540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc.</p></div><p>It doesn't? What country do you live in?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , some people take advantage of the privacy , just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do , but that does n't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc.It does n't ?
What country do you live in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc.It doesn't?
What country do you live in?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463688</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1268493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vast collections of literature (many, many LoCs worth) exist outside amazon.com containing esoteric theories, morbid historical narratives and subversive ideas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vast collections of literature ( many , many LoCs worth ) exist outside amazon.com containing esoteric theories , morbid historical narratives and subversive ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vast collections of literature (many, many LoCs worth) exist outside amazon.com containing esoteric theories, morbid historical narratives and subversive ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465032</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268506380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"</p><p>Because children are abused during the making of child pornography.  You really don't understand this?</p><p>"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks."</p><p>I bet it still happens.  Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market.  You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).</p><p>"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography."</p><p>If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem.  These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.</p><p>"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents."</p><p>We already do. Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents.  It's also not always the parent.  Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people , what is the problem ?
" Because children are abused during the making of child pornography .
You really do n't understand this ?
" It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks .
" I bet it still happens .
Child porn is highly illegal and as a result , it probably has a high value on the black market .
You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network ( hell , some might even charge for access ) .
" If somebody produced child pornography as a " hobby " ( instead of for profit , which would result in a swift arrest anyway ) , it 's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it .
So again , anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem , nor is the alleged availability of child pornography .
" If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught , it does contribute to the problem .
These people may have gotten caught if they were n't able to pass it around undetected .
" The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child .
If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse , they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents .
" We already do .
Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents .
It 's also not always the parent .
Many times , it 's a friend of the parents/family ( or even siblings/cousins ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?
"Because children are abused during the making of child pornography.
You really don't understand this?
"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.
"I bet it still happens.
Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market.
You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).
"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it.
So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.
"If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem.
These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.
"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child.
If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents.
"We already do.
Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents.
It's also not always the parent.
Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463464</id>
	<title>ObPinkFloyd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no dark side of the web really<br>Matter of fact its all dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no dark side of the web reallyMatter of fact its all dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no dark side of the web reallyMatter of fact its all dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465594</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>catman</author>
	<datestamp>1268510640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.  The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.</p></div><p>I've seen people act as if they really believed that. A small boy crying desperately, any parent would realize that he was distressed. Plenty of adults within hearing, nobody seemed to care. I talked to him, found out he was lost in his new neighborhood and helped him find his way. And yes, I did think about the possibility that I would be taken for a child molester, but - suppose he didn't find his way and was picked up by someone not out to help him?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see a child in trouble , absolutely never go near them .
The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.I 've seen people act as if they really believed that .
A small boy crying desperately , any parent would realize that he was distressed .
Plenty of adults within hearing , nobody seemed to care .
I talked to him , found out he was lost in his new neighborhood and helped him find his way .
And yes , I did think about the possibility that I would be taken for a child molester , but - suppose he did n't find his way and was picked up by someone not out to help him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them.
The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.I've seen people act as if they really believed that.
A small boy crying desperately, any parent would realize that he was distressed.
Plenty of adults within hearing, nobody seemed to care.
I talked to him, found out he was lost in his new neighborhood and helped him find his way.
And yes, I did think about the possibility that I would be taken for a child molester, but - suppose he didn't find his way and was picked up by someone not out to help him?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463504</id>
	<title>I learned a lot from this article</title>
	<author>macbuzz01</author>
	<datestamp>1268490840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author explains that there is a lot of content behind password protected sites.  I had no idea that google didn't know your password!  <br> <br> I heard something about a robots.txt file somewhere before, but I thought that all robots where smarter than me anyway.  <br> <br>I also learned about something called freeweb that may or may not be used for good or bad things.  I then learned about TOR which also may or may not be used for good or bad things.  <br> <br> This article really opened my eyes to the vastness of the Internets</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author explains that there is a lot of content behind password protected sites .
I had no idea that google did n't know your password !
I heard something about a robots.txt file somewhere before , but I thought that all robots where smarter than me anyway .
I also learned about something called freeweb that may or may not be used for good or bad things .
I then learned about TOR which also may or may not be used for good or bad things .
This article really opened my eyes to the vastness of the Internets</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author explains that there is a lot of content behind password protected sites.
I had no idea that google didn't know your password!
I heard something about a robots.txt file somewhere before, but I thought that all robots where smarter than me anyway.
I also learned about something called freeweb that may or may not be used for good or bad things.
I then learned about TOR which also may or may not be used for good or bad things.
This article really opened my eyes to the vastness of the Internets</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463920</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1268495820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone.</p></div><p>Fuck yeah I am!

*fap fap fap fap fap*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed .
Interested ? You 're not alone.Fuck yeah I am !
* fap fap fap fap fap *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.
Interested? You're not alone.Fuck yeah I am!
*fap fap fap fap fap*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464226</id>
	<title>13\% of the web explored by search engines?</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1268498820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was recently told by an academic in computer security that only about 13\% of the web are indexed by search engines such as Google. Does anyone know anything about this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was recently told by an academic in computer security that only about 13 \ % of the web are indexed by search engines such as Google .
Does anyone know anything about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was recently told by an academic in computer security that only about 13\% of the web are indexed by search engines such as Google.
Does anyone know anything about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464792</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268504520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now there is also the issue of teenagers producing what is considered child pornography. I think this will become the growing segment of 'child porn' for which people are convicted. People sexually abusing very young children happens, but I think it's rare in comparison.</p><p>When teenagers are abusing themselves we can't really convict the producers in a way that is proportionate to the crime. Instead we go after people in possession of the material. This does nothing more than grow an underground industry because we will only ever be able to find a very tiny percentage of possessors and not punish the producers.</p><p>If anyone wants a stable they should go into the law enforcement industry. Politicians will continue to sell us all on the idea that more cops lurking around will protect us, but all it really does is create something like the gestapo. An environment of fear, bureaucracy, wrongful convictions (to justify it's existence),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now there is also the issue of teenagers producing what is considered child pornography .
I think this will become the growing segment of 'child porn ' for which people are convicted .
People sexually abusing very young children happens , but I think it 's rare in comparison.When teenagers are abusing themselves we ca n't really convict the producers in a way that is proportionate to the crime .
Instead we go after people in possession of the material .
This does nothing more than grow an underground industry because we will only ever be able to find a very tiny percentage of possessors and not punish the producers.If anyone wants a stable they should go into the law enforcement industry .
Politicians will continue to sell us all on the idea that more cops lurking around will protect us , but all it really does is create something like the gestapo .
An environment of fear , bureaucracy , wrongful convictions ( to justify it 's existence ) , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now there is also the issue of teenagers producing what is considered child pornography.
I think this will become the growing segment of 'child porn' for which people are convicted.
People sexually abusing very young children happens, but I think it's rare in comparison.When teenagers are abusing themselves we can't really convict the producers in a way that is proportionate to the crime.
Instead we go after people in possession of the material.
This does nothing more than grow an underground industry because we will only ever be able to find a very tiny percentage of possessors and not punish the producers.If anyone wants a stable they should go into the law enforcement industry.
Politicians will continue to sell us all on the idea that more cops lurking around will protect us, but all it really does is create something like the gestapo.
An environment of fear, bureaucracy, wrongful convictions (to justify it's existence), ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465634</id>
	<title>Hiding is not always sinister or suspicious</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1268510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"The deep web isn't half as strange or sinister as it sounds. In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."</i> </p><p>In reality, we might be better off if more of the Web were "dark" in this sense.  Google (and the other major search sites) are fairly good at indexing text in English (and other human languages).  But there's a lot of data online in those "sprawling databases" that are not encoded in human language, and are much better indexed by separate software that is designed to do that job right.  One of the very real problems with google is that it so often returns sites that seem to contain strings of "words", but in fact aren't human language.  I'm sure most people here are quite familiar with the results of "matches" on such data.</p><p>This isn't any sort of new observation.  There are by now several thousand projects around the Net that deal with distributed databases of information encoded in various ways that are relevant and important to the people who use that data.  One very well-known example is the GIS data that's used by the mapping software in your GPS gadget.  This is very useful information, but for google to index it and return it when you google for "Brittney Spears" is not really a good idea.  Similarly, there are large online databases of such stuff as astronomy and DNA data, and the person looking for the info on Madonna or Shakespeare is not happy with getting strings of parsed DNA.</p><p>I've been involved in building a search facility for several kinds of technical data, whose nature is uninteresting to nearly everyone here, but would server as one of many such examples.  There are a thousand or so sites that use these formats.  The data is "encoded" in plain-text form, mostly for ease of sending via any available method such as email. But most of the sites use robots.txt to tell the search bots to ignore the directories that contain this data, because the people using it are themselves annoyed by getting their own data back in google searches.  The data contains shorts bursts of letters, so search bots treat it as text and index all the "words".  The result is worthless to nearly anyone, including those who are familiar with and using this data encoding.</p><p>As an example, I found a file in my site that contains the string "red haired girl", did a google search, and it found a match on the file.  People who click on that match, perhaps due to a redhead fetish, might be disappointed to find that it contains lines of text like "E3 ECE | FAB Ace | fec ecA | B2 e efg | age f2 a |fec ecA |BAB cAE |1 FAF FAF<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|2 FAF".   That's probably not what most people would expect for such a search. (Of course, if you follow irtrad-l, you'll probably recognize that notation and start humming along.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>A much more rational approach would be to develop separate search sites for each such kind of specialized data.  The google gang does sorta understand this, of course.  Thus, Google Maps uses the GIS data, but Google Search doesn't return GIS data (very often<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).  They have software for searching GIS data, as do all the mapmakers, but they understand that there's little benefit in trying to merge GIS and human-language searches.  Share some of the software, yes, since net navigation is a common task in all of them. Present the GIS addressing info in text form, too, since it's useful for humans to search that.  But the text analysis and indexing schemes for the basic data have little in common, and need mostly separate software to do a good job of searching the data.</p><p>Anyway, it's no doubt true that there is a lot of "suspicious" information (semi-)hidden online.  But it's also true that a lot of data is hidden from the major searchers simply because they don't do much that's useful with the data, and there's no reason to waste a server's CPU time servicing requests from googlebot or the other human-language search bots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The deep web is n't half as strange or sinister as it sounds .
In computer-science speak , it refers to those portions of the web that , for whatever reason , have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google .
" In reality , we might be better off if more of the Web were " dark " in this sense .
Google ( and the other major search sites ) are fairly good at indexing text in English ( and other human languages ) .
But there 's a lot of data online in those " sprawling databases " that are not encoded in human language , and are much better indexed by separate software that is designed to do that job right .
One of the very real problems with google is that it so often returns sites that seem to contain strings of " words " , but in fact are n't human language .
I 'm sure most people here are quite familiar with the results of " matches " on such data.This is n't any sort of new observation .
There are by now several thousand projects around the Net that deal with distributed databases of information encoded in various ways that are relevant and important to the people who use that data .
One very well-known example is the GIS data that 's used by the mapping software in your GPS gadget .
This is very useful information , but for google to index it and return it when you google for " Brittney Spears " is not really a good idea .
Similarly , there are large online databases of such stuff as astronomy and DNA data , and the person looking for the info on Madonna or Shakespeare is not happy with getting strings of parsed DNA.I 've been involved in building a search facility for several kinds of technical data , whose nature is uninteresting to nearly everyone here , but would server as one of many such examples .
There are a thousand or so sites that use these formats .
The data is " encoded " in plain-text form , mostly for ease of sending via any available method such as email .
But most of the sites use robots.txt to tell the search bots to ignore the directories that contain this data , because the people using it are themselves annoyed by getting their own data back in google searches .
The data contains shorts bursts of letters , so search bots treat it as text and index all the " words " .
The result is worthless to nearly anyone , including those who are familiar with and using this data encoding.As an example , I found a file in my site that contains the string " red haired girl " , did a google search , and it found a match on the file .
People who click on that match , perhaps due to a redhead fetish , might be disappointed to find that it contains lines of text like " E3 ECE | FAB Ace | fec ecA | B2 e efg | age f2 a | fec ecA | BAB cAE | 1 FAF FAF : | 2 FAF " .
That 's probably not what most people would expect for such a search .
( Of course , if you follow irtrad-l , you 'll probably recognize that notation and start humming along .
; - ) A much more rational approach would be to develop separate search sites for each such kind of specialized data .
The google gang does sorta understand this , of course .
Thus , Google Maps uses the GIS data , but Google Search does n't return GIS data ( very often ; - ) .
They have software for searching GIS data , as do all the mapmakers , but they understand that there 's little benefit in trying to merge GIS and human-language searches .
Share some of the software , yes , since net navigation is a common task in all of them .
Present the GIS addressing info in text form , too , since it 's useful for humans to search that .
But the text analysis and indexing schemes for the basic data have little in common , and need mostly separate software to do a good job of searching the data.Anyway , it 's no doubt true that there is a lot of " suspicious " information ( semi- ) hidden online .
But it 's also true that a lot of data is hidden from the major searchers simply because they do n't do much that 's useful with the data , and there 's no reason to waste a server 's CPU time servicing requests from googlebot or the other human-language search bots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The deep web isn't half as strange or sinister as it sounds.
In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google.
" In reality, we might be better off if more of the Web were "dark" in this sense.
Google (and the other major search sites) are fairly good at indexing text in English (and other human languages).
But there's a lot of data online in those "sprawling databases" that are not encoded in human language, and are much better indexed by separate software that is designed to do that job right.
One of the very real problems with google is that it so often returns sites that seem to contain strings of "words", but in fact aren't human language.
I'm sure most people here are quite familiar with the results of "matches" on such data.This isn't any sort of new observation.
There are by now several thousand projects around the Net that deal with distributed databases of information encoded in various ways that are relevant and important to the people who use that data.
One very well-known example is the GIS data that's used by the mapping software in your GPS gadget.
This is very useful information, but for google to index it and return it when you google for "Brittney Spears" is not really a good idea.
Similarly, there are large online databases of such stuff as astronomy and DNA data, and the person looking for the info on Madonna or Shakespeare is not happy with getting strings of parsed DNA.I've been involved in building a search facility for several kinds of technical data, whose nature is uninteresting to nearly everyone here, but would server as one of many such examples.
There are a thousand or so sites that use these formats.
The data is "encoded" in plain-text form, mostly for ease of sending via any available method such as email.
But most of the sites use robots.txt to tell the search bots to ignore the directories that contain this data, because the people using it are themselves annoyed by getting their own data back in google searches.
The data contains shorts bursts of letters, so search bots treat it as text and index all the "words".
The result is worthless to nearly anyone, including those who are familiar with and using this data encoding.As an example, I found a file in my site that contains the string "red haired girl", did a google search, and it found a match on the file.
People who click on that match, perhaps due to a redhead fetish, might be disappointed to find that it contains lines of text like "E3 ECE | FAB Ace | fec ecA | B2 e efg | age f2 a |fec ecA |BAB cAE |1 FAF FAF :|2 FAF".
That's probably not what most people would expect for such a search.
(Of course, if you follow irtrad-l, you'll probably recognize that notation and start humming along.
;-)A much more rational approach would be to develop separate search sites for each such kind of specialized data.
The google gang does sorta understand this, of course.
Thus, Google Maps uses the GIS data, but Google Search doesn't return GIS data (very often ;-).
They have software for searching GIS data, as do all the mapmakers, but they understand that there's little benefit in trying to merge GIS and human-language searches.
Share some of the software, yes, since net navigation is a common task in all of them.
Present the GIS addressing info in text form, too, since it's useful for humans to search that.
But the text analysis and indexing schemes for the basic data have little in common, and need mostly separate software to do a good job of searching the data.Anyway, it's no doubt true that there is a lot of "suspicious" information (semi-)hidden online.
But it's also true that a lot of data is hidden from the major searchers simply because they don't do much that's useful with the data, and there's no reason to waste a server's CPU time servicing requests from googlebot or the other human-language search bots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466054</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure? Because catholics usually are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
Because catholics usually are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
Because catholics usually are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464328</id>
	<title>not really</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1268499660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I made my forum/website invisible to search engines because I only want members coming from one single place which I have a link on.  Then only certain members join and it's actually quite nice and peaceful.  That's really all there is to it.  No terrorists or anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made my forum/website invisible to search engines because I only want members coming from one single place which I have a link on .
Then only certain members join and it 's actually quite nice and peaceful .
That 's really all there is to it .
No terrorists or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made my forum/website invisible to search engines because I only want members coming from one single place which I have a link on.
Then only certain members join and it's actually quite nice and peaceful.
That's really all there is to it.
No terrorists or anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464090</id>
	<title>NOYBnets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268497860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is like going to garage sales. You can expect to see a ton of the same old garbage, but usually someone has 'stored' something they don't care about but you really want. Occassionally there are priceless buried treasures that should be shared with the whole world. If marketers could regularly go through them all, it would provide unparalled insight into what we buy and store. Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on your point of view) everyone doesn't get to ramble through our garage unless we give them access or they break-in.</p><p>They are not really "darknets", a more accurate name is NOYBnets. (None Of Your Business)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is like going to garage sales .
You can expect to see a ton of the same old garbage , but usually someone has 'stored ' something they do n't care about but you really want .
Occassionally there are priceless buried treasures that should be shared with the whole world .
If marketers could regularly go through them all , it would provide unparalled insight into what we buy and store .
Unfortunately , ( or fortunately depending on your point of view ) everyone does n't get to ramble through our garage unless we give them access or they break-in.They are not really " darknets " , a more accurate name is NOYBnets .
( None Of Your Business )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is like going to garage sales.
You can expect to see a ton of the same old garbage, but usually someone has 'stored' something they don't care about but you really want.
Occassionally there are priceless buried treasures that should be shared with the whole world.
If marketers could regularly go through them all, it would provide unparalled insight into what we buy and store.
Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on your point of view) everyone doesn't get to ramble through our garage unless we give them access or they break-in.They are not really "darknets", a more accurate name is NOYBnets.
(None Of Your Business)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464502</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1268501580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video</p></div><p>My first reaction was to respond "bullshit!", but on further reflection I realized that parent post is legitimate within the context of an extremely narrow point of view. It isn't so much an example of bullshit as an example of limited thinking of someone who knows very little about a subject, but thinks he knows it all.

</p><p>As a writer of fiction, I use the darknet extensively: I've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I don't yet want to share publicly, and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few. I am sure that I am not alone in this approach. I can't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing.

</p><p>Most of the darknet is benign. Most of it is the aggregate of the huge number of private conversations that go on within the global crowd. There is nothing sinsiter about this, nor does it contradict the "information wants to be free" imperative. Since for the most part these conversations have to do with things that might eventually become information, but are in their nascent period, where they are confused, incomplete pieces that a private group is trying to make sense of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen and heard this 'hidden ' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I 've ever encountered are trafficking ( child ) porn , software , audio and videoMy first reaction was to respond " bullshit !
" , but on further reflection I realized that parent post is legitimate within the context of an extremely narrow point of view .
It is n't so much an example of bullshit as an example of limited thinking of someone who knows very little about a subject , but thinks he knows it all .
As a writer of fiction , I use the darknet extensively : I 've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I do n't yet want to share publicly , and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few .
I am sure that I am not alone in this approach .
I ca n't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing .
Most of the darknet is benign .
Most of it is the aggregate of the huge number of private conversations that go on within the global crowd .
There is nothing sinsiter about this , nor does it contradict the " information wants to be free " imperative .
Since for the most part these conversations have to do with things that might eventually become information , but are in their nascent period , where they are confused , incomplete pieces that a private group is trying to make sense of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and videoMy first reaction was to respond "bullshit!
", but on further reflection I realized that parent post is legitimate within the context of an extremely narrow point of view.
It isn't so much an example of bullshit as an example of limited thinking of someone who knows very little about a subject, but thinks he knows it all.
As a writer of fiction, I use the darknet extensively: I've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I don't yet want to share publicly, and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few.
I am sure that I am not alone in this approach.
I can't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing.
Most of the darknet is benign.
Most of it is the aggregate of the huge number of private conversations that go on within the global crowd.
There is nothing sinsiter about this, nor does it contradict the "information wants to be free" imperative.
Since for the most part these conversations have to do with things that might eventually become information, but are in their nascent period, where they are confused, incomplete pieces that a private group is trying to make sense of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465224</id>
	<title>eh</title>
	<author>kadnan</author>
	<datestamp>1268507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Darknets are not new for me. Every porn site I visited had a dark background thus helped me to "penetrate" into it further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Darknets are not new for me .
Every porn site I visited had a dark background thus helped me to " penetrate " into it further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darknets are not new for me.
Every porn site I visited had a dark background thus helped me to "penetrate" into it further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463988</id>
	<title>Some years ago...</title>
	<author>bagsta</author>
	<datestamp>1268496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I came across to this nice <a href="http://www.searchlores.org/deepweb\_searching.htm" title="searchlores.org" rel="nofollow">article</a> [searchlores.org] regarding deep web. It has some techniques on how to search, access and exploit deep web. It is worth to look also the other articles of this site...</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I came across to this nice article [ searchlores.org ] regarding deep web .
It has some techniques on how to search , access and exploit deep web .
It is worth to look also the other articles of this site.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I came across to this nice article [searchlores.org] regarding deep web.
It has some techniques on how to search, access and exploit deep web.
It is worth to look also the other articles of this site...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464066</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467734</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268482980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.</p></div><p>Seriously? Think about this for a second. Child porn isn't a "hobby." Children are sexually and emotionally abused. Would you say that it's okay to molest children as long as its just a "hobby?" No, i think not. Nobody profits from being a pedophile, but they still hurt children in ways you obviously could never sympathize with. This isn't about the business, it's about sick people doing sick things to kids.</p><p>and @obsessivemathsfreak</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance.</p></div><p>This is insane. You seriously don't understand the effects on the victims?   Why don't you go ask a kid who's been involved in something like this if they think it was just unpleasant. Or better yet, how would you feel if your own children were "inconvenienced" by having something like this happening to them. Surely you wouldn't tell the cops or anything, because it's just and unpleasant nuisance, right? Nothing serious.</p><p>Those of you who are spouting this crap should be ashamed of yourself. It's disgusting to defend this crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people , what is the problem ?
" If somebody produced child pornography as a " hobby " ( instead of for profit , which would result in a swift arrest anyway ) , it 's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it .
So again , anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem , nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.Seriously ?
Think about this for a second .
Child porn is n't a " hobby .
" Children are sexually and emotionally abused .
Would you say that it 's okay to molest children as long as its just a " hobby ?
" No , i think not .
Nobody profits from being a pedophile , but they still hurt children in ways you obviously could never sympathize with .
This is n't about the business , it 's about sick people doing sick things to kids.and @ obsessivemathsfreakChild pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance.This is insane .
You seriously do n't understand the effects on the victims ?
Why do n't you go ask a kid who 's been involved in something like this if they think it was just unpleasant .
Or better yet , how would you feel if your own children were " inconvenienced " by having something like this happening to them .
Surely you would n't tell the cops or anything , because it 's just and unpleasant nuisance , right ?
Nothing serious.Those of you who are spouting this crap should be ashamed of yourself .
It 's disgusting to defend this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?
"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it.
So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.Seriously?
Think about this for a second.
Child porn isn't a "hobby.
" Children are sexually and emotionally abused.
Would you say that it's okay to molest children as long as its just a "hobby?
" No, i think not.
Nobody profits from being a pedophile, but they still hurt children in ways you obviously could never sympathize with.
This isn't about the business, it's about sick people doing sick things to kids.and @obsessivemathsfreakChild pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance.This is insane.
You seriously don't understand the effects on the victims?
Why don't you go ask a kid who's been involved in something like this if they think it was just unpleasant.
Or better yet, how would you feel if your own children were "inconvenienced" by having something like this happening to them.
Surely you wouldn't tell the cops or anything, because it's just and unpleasant nuisance, right?
Nothing serious.Those of you who are spouting this crap should be ashamed of yourself.
It's disgusting to defend this crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463632</id>
	<title>That's computer-science speak?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."</p><p>Spare me your mumbo jumbo, doctor!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In computer-science speak , it refers to those portions of the web that , for whatever reason , have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google .
" Spare me your mumbo jumbo , doctor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google.
"Spare me your mumbo jumbo, doctor!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465580</id>
	<title>Yes, believe it or not Google cannot do everything</title>
	<author>BC\_Man</author>
	<datestamp>1268510580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has built quite an empire on making people believe that they are the defacto standard for search. They should be commended for the quality of their applications but sadly the marketing has led people astray. I actually took a trip to my local University to do some research. A day login gave me access to thousands of Scientific papers that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of pounds for. Doing real research takes footwork and hardwork. The web can do a lot but you have to know where to look. See <a href="http://narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html" title="narconews.com" rel="nofollow">http://narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html</a> [narconews.com] , <a href="http://deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com] , <a href="http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html</a> [guardian.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has built quite an empire on making people believe that they are the defacto standard for search .
They should be commended for the quality of their applications but sadly the marketing has led people astray .
I actually took a trip to my local University to do some research .
A day login gave me access to thousands of Scientific papers that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of pounds for .
Doing real research takes footwork and hardwork .
The web can do a lot but you have to know where to look .
See http : //narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html [ narconews.com ] , http : //deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] , http : //society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has built quite an empire on making people believe that they are the defacto standard for search.
They should be commended for the quality of their applications but sadly the marketing has led people astray.
I actually took a trip to my local University to do some research.
A day login gave me access to thousands of Scientific papers that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of pounds for.
Doing real research takes footwork and hardwork.
The web can do a lot but you have to know where to look.
See http://narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html [narconews.com] , http://deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] , http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466342</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268472480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By the original <b>Terrorists</b> I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go <b>KABOOM !</b> taking themselves with innocent people around them.</p></div><p>Well, there's a pretty original definition of the word terrorism. So in your eyes Al-Qaedas bombing of U.S.S. Cole in 2000 wasn't a terrorist action? I mean, they didn't blow themselves up and no civilians were killed.</p><p>On the other hand, terrorism has been defined as fighting a war without an army.</p><p>Seriously, how is killing civilians with phosphorus bombs or napalm better just because you're a part of an army? Especially when it is clear to all that you lie about your motives?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM !
taking themselves with innocent people around them.Well , there 's a pretty original definition of the word terrorism .
So in your eyes Al-Qaedas bombing of U.S.S .
Cole in 2000 was n't a terrorist action ?
I mean , they did n't blow themselves up and no civilians were killed.On the other hand , terrorism has been defined as fighting a war without an army.Seriously , how is killing civilians with phosphorus bombs or napalm better just because you 're a part of an army ?
Especially when it is clear to all that you lie about your motives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM !
taking themselves with innocent people around them.Well, there's a pretty original definition of the word terrorism.
So in your eyes Al-Qaedas bombing of U.S.S.
Cole in 2000 wasn't a terrorist action?
I mean, they didn't blow themselves up and no civilians were killed.On the other hand, terrorism has been defined as fighting a war without an army.Seriously, how is killing civilians with phosphorus bombs or napalm better just because you're a part of an army?
Especially when it is clear to all that you lie about your motives?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464480</id>
	<title>Re:About Privacy</title>
	<author>Zumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268501340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually could not help pondering that exact quote, particularly what it is missing. Those who wish to sacrifice the right to online privacy in order to make profits, such as the entertainment industry or advertisers; or to find and oppress dissidents for whatever reason.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually could not help pondering that exact quote , particularly what it is missing .
Those who wish to sacrifice the right to online privacy in order to make profits , such as the entertainment industry or advertisers ; or to find and oppress dissidents for whatever reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually could not help pondering that exact quote, particularly what it is missing.
Those who wish to sacrifice the right to online privacy in order to make profits, such as the entertainment industry or advertisers; or to find and oppress dissidents for whatever reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463544</id>
	<title>Adopt a long term perspective...</title>
	<author>arcite</author>
	<datestamp>1268491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just maybe not everyone in the world wants to be Google's bitch and allow them to mine their precious information for profit. Information may want to be free, but information is also power. Secrets are valuable to those who hold them, and in a near future world where information becomes increasingly more valuable, those who hold the secrets will be the most powerful.
</p><p>Now just ask yourself, are you willing to submit to the likes of Google and give up the right and freedom to decide what to do with your information? Your secrets?
</p><p>Do we continue to sell our individuality, our identity so cheaply?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just maybe not everyone in the world wants to be Google 's bitch and allow them to mine their precious information for profit .
Information may want to be free , but information is also power .
Secrets are valuable to those who hold them , and in a near future world where information becomes increasingly more valuable , those who hold the secrets will be the most powerful .
Now just ask yourself , are you willing to submit to the likes of Google and give up the right and freedom to decide what to do with your information ?
Your secrets ?
Do we continue to sell our individuality , our identity so cheaply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just maybe not everyone in the world wants to be Google's bitch and allow them to mine their precious information for profit.
Information may want to be free, but information is also power.
Secrets are valuable to those who hold them, and in a near future world where information becomes increasingly more valuable, those who hold the secrets will be the most powerful.
Now just ask yourself, are you willing to submit to the likes of Google and give up the right and freedom to decide what to do with your information?
Your secrets?
Do we continue to sell our individuality, our identity so cheaply?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463534</id>
	<title>this article is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>SinShiva</author>
	<datestamp>1268491320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>there is no mystery to this 'deep web'.  massive data reserves?  quite likely.  personal, but unsecured servers hosting copyrighted content? even more likely.<br> <br>This kind of article will only make things worse for a future defendant trying to explain he wasn't coordinating with 'the deep' in the distribution of his movies from his computer to his Mythbuntu box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no mystery to this 'deep web' .
massive data reserves ?
quite likely .
personal , but unsecured servers hosting copyrighted content ?
even more likely .
This kind of article will only make things worse for a future defendant trying to explain he was n't coordinating with 'the deep ' in the distribution of his movies from his computer to his Mythbuntu box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no mystery to this 'deep web'.
massive data reserves?
quite likely.
personal, but unsecured servers hosting copyrighted content?
even more likely.
This kind of article will only make things worse for a future defendant trying to explain he wasn't coordinating with 'the deep' in the distribution of his movies from his computer to his Mythbuntu box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464270</id>
	<title>alt roots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the search engines don't crawl the alt roots either! that means that there are AT LEAST FIVE WHOLE PAGES they've missed there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the search engines do n't crawl the alt roots either !
that means that there are AT LEAST FIVE WHOLE PAGES they 've missed there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the search engines don't crawl the alt roots either!
that means that there are AT LEAST FIVE WHOLE PAGES they've missed there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460</id>
	<title>http://www.robotstxt.org/</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1268490240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.robotstxt.org/" title="robotstxt.org">http://www.robotstxt.org/</a> [robotstxt.org]</p><p>Says it all really, no need for a melodramatic "article" trying to draw parallels between the non indexed and page ranked portion of the net, and kiddie porn.</p><p>Some of us just don't want google indexing out stuff on general principles.</p><p>FX, types "brain tumour" into google</p><p>up pops page full of links asking me if I want to buy a brain tumour on fleabay...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.robotstxt.org/ [ robotstxt.org ] Says it all really , no need for a melodramatic " article " trying to draw parallels between the non indexed and page ranked portion of the net , and kiddie porn.Some of us just do n't want google indexing out stuff on general principles.FX , types " brain tumour " into googleup pops page full of links asking me if I want to buy a brain tumour on fleabay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.robotstxt.org/ [robotstxt.org]Says it all really, no need for a melodramatic "article" trying to draw parallels between the non indexed and page ranked portion of the net, and kiddie porn.Some of us just don't want google indexing out stuff on general principles.FX, types "brain tumour" into googleup pops page full of links asking me if I want to buy a brain tumour on fleabay...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463510</id>
	<title>Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268490900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.tvdizi.net</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tvdizi.net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tvdizi.net</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463660</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1268493060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there's next to zero informational value in this undernet</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe you just didn't look in the right places.</p><p>It's possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's next to zero informational value in this undernetMaybe you just did n't look in the right places.It 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's next to zero informational value in this undernetMaybe you just didn't look in the right places.It's possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466840</id>
	<title>options</title>
	<author>Spaham</author>
	<datestamp>1268476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you never tried the -robot-follow option in google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you never tried the -robot-follow option in google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you never tried the -robot-follow option in google...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464664</id>
	<title>Re:About Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.</i></p><p>Before you ask for more intrusion of gov't into corporate affairs, step back and realize most corporations are small businesses owned by regular people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board .
I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database .
I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.Before you ask for more intrusion of gov't into corporate affairs , step back and realize most corporations are small businesses owned by regular people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board.
I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database.
I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.Before you ask for more intrusion of gov't into corporate affairs, step back and realize most corporations are small businesses owned by regular people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31469320</id>
	<title>Re:It's hidden on a purpose</title>
	<author>Mike610544</author>
	<datestamp>1268496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc</a> [youtube.com]</p> </div><p>This is among the dumbest things I've ever seen on the internet. Guilty or innocent, you're going to get more scrutiny from the cops if you don't cooperate. Once you're indicted everything the guy says is probably true, but when there's a bar fight and someone gets killed, do you really want to be the one person in the crowd who says, by omission "I will not deny that I killed that guy?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to review the " Do n't talk to the police " video : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6wXkI4t7nuc [ youtube.com ] This is among the dumbest things I 've ever seen on the internet .
Guilty or innocent , you 're going to get more scrutiny from the cops if you do n't cooperate .
Once you 're indicted everything the guy says is probably true , but when there 's a bar fight and someone gets killed , do you really want to be the one person in the crowd who says , by omission " I will not deny that I killed that guy ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com] This is among the dumbest things I've ever seen on the internet.
Guilty or innocent, you're going to get more scrutiny from the cops if you don't cooperate.
Once you're indicted everything the guy says is probably true, but when there's a bar fight and someone gets killed, do you really want to be the one person in the crowd who says, by omission "I will not deny that I killed that guy?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450</id>
	<title>Terrorism</title>
	<author>Taco Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it ironic that in the online world there are places where the <b>Terrorists</b> and those who support them are calling us, the Freedom Loving People, <i>terrorists</i> !</p><p>By the original <b>Terrorists</b> I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go <b>KABOOM !</b> taking themselves with innocent people around them.</p><p>What I find ironic is <b>THEY</b> call us <i>terrorists</i> !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it ironic that in the online world there are places where the Terrorists and those who support them are calling us , the Freedom Loving People , terrorists ! By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM !
taking themselves with innocent people around them.What I find ironic is THEY call us terrorists !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it ironic that in the online world there are places where the Terrorists and those who support them are calling us, the Freedom Loving People, terrorists !By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM !
taking themselves with innocent people around them.What I find ironic is THEY call us terrorists !
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31469320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31473574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31475422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0524250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31473574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31469320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31475422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31467226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31466708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31463970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31464226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0524250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0524250.31465580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
