<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_220244</id>
	<title>Every British Citizen To Have a Personal Webpage</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269082800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Telegraph reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is about to announce that within a year <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7484600/Every-citizen-to-have-personal-webpage.html">everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government services</a> as part of a plan to save billions of pounds by putting all public services online. The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax, vehicle licensing, passports and housing benefits within 10 years as services are offered through a single digital gateway. [This] 'saves time for people and it saves money for the Government &mdash; the processing of a piece of paper and mailing it back costs many times more than it costs to process something electronically,' says Tim Berners-Lee, an advisor to the Prime Minister. However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government's poor record of handling personal data. 'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Telegraph reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is about to announce that within a year everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government services as part of a plan to save billions of pounds by putting all public services online .
The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax , vehicle licensing , passports and housing benefits within 10 years as services are offered through a single digital gateway .
[ This ] 'saves time for people and it saves money for the Government    the processing of a piece of paper and mailing it back costs many times more than it costs to process something electronically, ' says Tim Berners-Lee , an advisor to the Prime Minister .
However , the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government 's poor record of handling personal data .
'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole, ' says one union leader .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is about to announce that within a year everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government services as part of a plan to save billions of pounds by putting all public services online.
The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax, vehicle licensing, passports and housing benefits within 10 years as services are offered through a single digital gateway.
[This] 'saves time for people and it saves money for the Government — the processing of a piece of paper and mailing it back costs many times more than it costs to process something electronically,' says Tim Berners-Lee, an advisor to the Prime Minister.
However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government's poor record of handling personal data.
'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555898</id>
	<title>identifiable access to the internet?</title>
	<author>Arty2</author>
	<datestamp>1269163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about foreigners that are temporarily in Britain and want to deal with something?
And now that they will be given per person IDs and passwords the field is open for identifiable internet access, login or you can't connect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about foreigners that are temporarily in Britain and want to deal with something ?
And now that they will be given per person IDs and passwords the field is open for identifiable internet access , login or you ca n't connect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about foreigners that are temporarily in Britain and want to deal with something?
And now that they will be given per person IDs and passwords the field is open for identifiable internet access, login or you can't connect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557172</id>
	<title>Not yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fine with it in addition to physical offices, but no way in hell would I like to see it replace them. We're not at that point yet.</p><p>Why, only a couple of months ago we had no internet connection for around a month or so, simply because the phone company accidently cut our line and our ISP refused to reinstate our service until they finally decided they could be bothered.</p><p>I'm not missing out on conducting vital business simply because the only channel one can go through to do this is completely unavaliable. At least if an office is still around, things can still get done. Not to mention how some ISPs have random dropouts, or throttle connections... Once connections across the board are decent and ISPs get their act together, THEN we can talk about completely replacing our infrastructure with online equivalents.</p><p>Of course, this is Tim Berners-Lee we're talking about here. He would probably move into the internet and procreate with it, if he could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fine with it in addition to physical offices , but no way in hell would I like to see it replace them .
We 're not at that point yet.Why , only a couple of months ago we had no internet connection for around a month or so , simply because the phone company accidently cut our line and our ISP refused to reinstate our service until they finally decided they could be bothered.I 'm not missing out on conducting vital business simply because the only channel one can go through to do this is completely unavaliable .
At least if an office is still around , things can still get done .
Not to mention how some ISPs have random dropouts , or throttle connections... Once connections across the board are decent and ISPs get their act together , THEN we can talk about completely replacing our infrastructure with online equivalents.Of course , this is Tim Berners-Lee we 're talking about here .
He would probably move into the internet and procreate with it , if he could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fine with it in addition to physical offices, but no way in hell would I like to see it replace them.
We're not at that point yet.Why, only a couple of months ago we had no internet connection for around a month or so, simply because the phone company accidently cut our line and our ISP refused to reinstate our service until they finally decided they could be bothered.I'm not missing out on conducting vital business simply because the only channel one can go through to do this is completely unavaliable.
At least if an office is still around, things can still get done.
Not to mention how some ISPs have random dropouts, or throttle connections... Once connections across the board are decent and ISPs get their act together, THEN we can talk about completely replacing our infrastructure with online equivalents.Of course, this is Tim Berners-Lee we're talking about here.
He would probably move into the internet and procreate with it, if he could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558132</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about other countries, but here in norway we have had a similiar system implemented for quite some time now, since 2006 to be precise.<br>So far, it has worked out quite well.<br>As far as I can see, the practicality of this system outweighs the potential downsides by far.<br>Additionally, associating people with an online account the same way you associate someone with a national identity number, sets the precedent to some advances we are probabbly going to see in the future, like online voting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about other countries , but here in norway we have had a similiar system implemented for quite some time now , since 2006 to be precise.So far , it has worked out quite well.As far as I can see , the practicality of this system outweighs the potential downsides by far.Additionally , associating people with an online account the same way you associate someone with a national identity number , sets the precedent to some advances we are probabbly going to see in the future , like online voting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about other countries, but here in norway we have had a similiar system implemented for quite some time now, since 2006 to be precise.So far, it has worked out quite well.As far as I can see, the practicality of this system outweighs the potential downsides by far.Additionally, associating people with an online account the same way you associate someone with a national identity number, sets the precedent to some advances we are probabbly going to see in the future, like online voting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554466</id>
	<title>Re:Leave it to the unions...</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1269098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then to mention data leaks as if it were the computers in the server room responsible leaking information, and not the unionized employees carelessly leaving laptops on trains, containing all the case files they have ever personally dealt with or might deal with in future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then to mention data leaks as if it were the computers in the server room responsible leaking information , and not the unionized employees carelessly leaving laptops on trains , containing all the case files they have ever personally dealt with or might deal with in future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then to mention data leaks as if it were the computers in the server room responsible leaking information, and not the unionized employees carelessly leaving laptops on trains, containing all the case files they have ever personally dealt with or might deal with in future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554560</id>
	<title>Awesome idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess all the unemployed will magically find a tree that grows money to afford an ISP, or just stop spending on such unimportant things such as food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess all the unemployed will magically find a tree that grows money to afford an ISP , or just stop spending on such unimportant things such as food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess all the unemployed will magically find a tree that grows money to afford an ISP, or just stop spending on such unimportant things such as food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553450</id>
	<title>government services = oil spill</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader</i></p><p>Hey, let's engineer a couple of oil-spills, too!  Jobs for thousands of people, and those people will be performing valuable services!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole, ' says one union leaderHey , let 's engineer a couple of oil-spills , too !
Jobs for thousands of people , and those people will be performing valuable services !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leaderHey, let's engineer a couple of oil-spills, too!
Jobs for thousands of people, and those people will be performing valuable services!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553628</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, this aspect won't go away.  You'll still have to jump through hoops and feel like bashing your head on your desk trying to comprehend legalese.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.Oh , this aspect wo n't go away .
You 'll still have to jump through hoops and feel like bashing your head on your desk trying to comprehend legalese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.Oh, this aspect won't go away.
You'll still have to jump through hoops and feel like bashing your head on your desk trying to comprehend legalese.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31559354</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1269203700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first used this portal to submit my taxes about 5 years ago. I think* that what's new is that they're going to give everyone an account. So really it's just a question of how broken the scalability is.</p><p>* No, I haven't RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first used this portal to submit my taxes about 5 years ago .
I think * that what 's new is that they 're going to give everyone an account .
So really it 's just a question of how broken the scalability is .
* No , I have n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first used this portal to submit my taxes about 5 years ago.
I think* that what's new is that they're going to give everyone an account.
So really it's just a question of how broken the scalability is.
* No, I haven't RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554058</id>
	<title>Re:Eroding specialist knowledge?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269094680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance</p></div><p>Rather than a big IT project, maybe they could eliminate these jobs by removing some of the insane levels of complexity from the tax system so that it's actually comprehensible by someone who hasn't read the few hundred thousand pages of relevant laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstanceRather than a big IT project , maybe they could eliminate these jobs by removing some of the insane levels of complexity from the tax system so that it 's actually comprehensible by someone who has n't read the few hundred thousand pages of relevant laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstanceRather than a big IT project, maybe they could eliminate these jobs by removing some of the insane levels of complexity from the tax system so that it's actually comprehensible by someone who hasn't read the few hundred thousand pages of relevant laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556158</id>
	<title>Personal webpage? Er...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1269168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't sound like a web page, it sounds like an user account. You know, like how sites like MySpace allows you to make an account and automatically gives you a "home page"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like a web page , it sounds like an user account .
You know , like how sites like MySpace allows you to make an account and automatically gives you a " home page " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like a web page, it sounds like an user account.
You know, like how sites like MySpace allows you to make an account and automatically gives you a "home page"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553696</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269091440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not going to happen though.  The government can't even get their payroll taxes computer to talk to their income tax computer, so we will each have our own personal flying pig before this will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not going to happen though .
The government ca n't even get their payroll taxes computer to talk to their income tax computer , so we will each have our own personal flying pig before this will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not going to happen though.
The government can't even get their payroll taxes computer to talk to their income tax computer, so we will each have our own personal flying pig before this will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556896</id>
	<title>Re:Denmark Already There</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why aren't all the Yanks bashing Denmark then?</p><p>Oh yeah, they only love attacking the UK... I bet they love it every time they hear about another one of our troops going home in a body bag due to "friendly fire" too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why are n't all the Yanks bashing Denmark then ? Oh yeah , they only love attacking the UK... I bet they love it every time they hear about another one of our troops going home in a body bag due to " friendly fire " too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why aren't all the Yanks bashing Denmark then?Oh yeah, they only love attacking the UK... I bet they love it every time they hear about another one of our troops going home in a body bag due to "friendly fire" too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554472</id>
	<title>Digital Economy Bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh great. Combine this with the Digital Economy Bill's provisions for cutting off people's internet service and you've got a way to cut people off from what will be a truly essential service on the mere accusation of copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh great .
Combine this with the Digital Economy Bill 's provisions for cutting off people 's internet service and you 've got a way to cut people off from what will be a truly essential service on the mere accusation of copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh great.
Combine this with the Digital Economy Bill's provisions for cutting off people's internet service and you've got a way to cut people off from what will be a truly essential service on the mere accusation of copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554268</id>
	<title>Re:Leave it to the unions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But efficient government is worse, so in this instance I'm in the trade union camp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p><p>Something around 200 million people killed by their own governments last century, if they were more efficient that number would be higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But efficient government is worse , so in this instance I 'm in the trade union camp : -/Something around 200 million people killed by their own governments last century , if they were more efficient that number would be higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But efficient government is worse, so in this instance I'm in the trade union camp :-/Something around 200 million people killed by their own governments last century, if they were more efficient that number would be higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554194</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright infringement</title>
	<author>esme</author>
	<datestamp>1269095640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you're not very familiar with the British tax system.  My understanding is that unless you're self-employed, you don't file a tax return.  Your employer takes the taxes, and you don't get them back, no matter what.  You do the equivalent (registering family changes that would affect your tax due) with your employer, and they adjust the withholding accordingly.</p><p>I lived in England (while telecommuting to a job in the US) for a couple of years.  And it took me 18 months to figure out that I didn't have to pay taxes in the UK on my US income.  Best of all, the way I found out was that I applied for a tax number so I could fill out a tax return, and they refused to give me one.  It was a little disorienting to have the British civil service tell me it didn't want to tax me...</p><p>-Esme</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you 're not very familiar with the British tax system .
My understanding is that unless you 're self-employed , you do n't file a tax return .
Your employer takes the taxes , and you do n't get them back , no matter what .
You do the equivalent ( registering family changes that would affect your tax due ) with your employer , and they adjust the withholding accordingly.I lived in England ( while telecommuting to a job in the US ) for a couple of years .
And it took me 18 months to figure out that I did n't have to pay taxes in the UK on my US income .
Best of all , the way I found out was that I applied for a tax number so I could fill out a tax return , and they refused to give me one .
It was a little disorienting to have the British civil service tell me it did n't want to tax me...-Esme</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you're not very familiar with the British tax system.
My understanding is that unless you're self-employed, you don't file a tax return.
Your employer takes the taxes, and you don't get them back, no matter what.
You do the equivalent (registering family changes that would affect your tax due) with your employer, and they adjust the withholding accordingly.I lived in England (while telecommuting to a job in the US) for a couple of years.
And it took me 18 months to figure out that I didn't have to pay taxes in the UK on my US income.
Best of all, the way I found out was that I applied for a tax number so I could fill out a tax return, and they refused to give me one.
It was a little disorienting to have the British civil service tell me it didn't want to tax me...-Esme</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553452</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, how dare the government track things such as applying for a passport and paying taxes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , how dare the government track things such as applying for a passport and paying taxes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, how dare the government track things such as applying for a passport and paying taxes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554728</id>
	<title>What of the computer illiterate</title>
	<author>theeddie55</author>
	<datestamp>1269101160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they do still exist, for a start, my mum, even though i've given her an old laptop, she won't dare turn it on unless i'm there. and further behind, my grandma, who if you gave her a mouse and told her what it was, she would probably try to feed it cheese.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they do still exist , for a start , my mum , even though i 've given her an old laptop , she wo n't dare turn it on unless i 'm there .
and further behind , my grandma , who if you gave her a mouse and told her what it was , she would probably try to feed it cheese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do still exist, for a start, my mum, even though i've given her an old laptop, she won't dare turn it on unless i'm there.
and further behind, my grandma, who if you gave her a mouse and told her what it was, she would probably try to feed it cheese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553630</id>
	<title>Re:on the dole, VS on the dole</title>
	<author>KahabutDieDrake</author>
	<datestamp>1269090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's remarkably cheaper to do the latter.  Suppose you didn't have to pay for hiring, managers, facilities, supplies, training, or anything else that goes with having employees on site.  Now suppose you use all that extra money to put up a computer that's better than the humans were.  Now, pay all the humans 2 years wages and walk away having A) improved services, B) cut spending, C)profit! It would of course be the first time in recorded history that a government had ever done more than C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's remarkably cheaper to do the latter .
Suppose you did n't have to pay for hiring , managers , facilities , supplies , training , or anything else that goes with having employees on site .
Now suppose you use all that extra money to put up a computer that 's better than the humans were .
Now , pay all the humans 2 years wages and walk away having A ) improved services , B ) cut spending , C ) profit !
It would of course be the first time in recorded history that a government had ever done more than C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's remarkably cheaper to do the latter.
Suppose you didn't have to pay for hiring, managers, facilities, supplies, training, or anything else that goes with having employees on site.
Now suppose you use all that extra money to put up a computer that's better than the humans were.
Now, pay all the humans 2 years wages and walk away having A) improved services, B) cut spending, C)profit!
It would of course be the first time in recorded history that a government had ever done more than C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554796</id>
	<title>ahhh....</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1269101820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>soon nobody will have to work in britain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>soon nobody will have to work in britain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>soon nobody will have to work in britain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554510</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, it's always a good day to rip the piss out of libertarians. Goddamn anti-government morons with their old fashioned ideas about "liberty" and "individual freedom"! Bunch of retards, eh? What do they know?</p><p>But I think you've called it wrong. I'm inclined in that direction, and I'm <i>pleased</i> about every government non-job that disappears due to improvements in the efficiency of the public sector. The UK public sector bureaucracies spend huge amounts of tax money <i>just on admin</i> and anything that reduces that expense is good! Once made redundant, bureaucrats could get proper jobs doing something productive, and contribute to the economy instead of feeding off it.</p><p>I don't believe for one moment that anything will get better, but it's a nice thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , it 's always a good day to rip the piss out of libertarians .
Goddamn anti-government morons with their old fashioned ideas about " liberty " and " individual freedom " !
Bunch of retards , eh ?
What do they know ? But I think you 've called it wrong .
I 'm inclined in that direction , and I 'm pleased about every government non-job that disappears due to improvements in the efficiency of the public sector .
The UK public sector bureaucracies spend huge amounts of tax money just on admin and anything that reduces that expense is good !
Once made redundant , bureaucrats could get proper jobs doing something productive , and contribute to the economy instead of feeding off it.I do n't believe for one moment that anything will get better , but it 's a nice thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, it's always a good day to rip the piss out of libertarians.
Goddamn anti-government morons with their old fashioned ideas about "liberty" and "individual freedom"!
Bunch of retards, eh?
What do they know?But I think you've called it wrong.
I'm inclined in that direction, and I'm pleased about every government non-job that disappears due to improvements in the efficiency of the public sector.
The UK public sector bureaucracies spend huge amounts of tax money just on admin and anything that reduces that expense is good!
Once made redundant, bureaucrats could get proper jobs doing something productive, and contribute to the economy instead of feeding off it.I don't believe for one moment that anything will get better, but it's a nice thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557370</id>
	<title>*facepalm*</title>
	<author>Indigo</author>
	<datestamp>1269184920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did Tim Berners-Lee go to the dark side?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did Tim Berners-Lee go to the dark side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did Tim Berners-Lee go to the dark side?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336</id>
	<title>on the dole, VS on the dole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole</p></div><p>So either we pay people to continue to do a job that can be done better by an automated system or we pay their unemployment benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the doleSo either we pay people to continue to do a job that can be done better by an automated system or we pay their unemployment benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the doleSo either we pay people to continue to do a job that can be done better by an automated system or we pay their unemployment benefit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555956</id>
	<title>There's a general election coming in the UK</title>
	<author>hughbar</author>
	<datestamp>1269164760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And these announcements are coming thick and fast.
<br> <br>
Also, UK government's record on successful system implementation is very expensive and patchy (to say the least): <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/591645.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/591645.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] That's the best link I can find quickly, doesn't include failure at the Student Load system: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/student\_loan\_fail/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/student\_loan\_fail/</a> [theregister.co.uk], Child Protection Agency: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3235394.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3235394.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] and the monstrous Hational Health System: <a href="http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/07/27/5bn-nhs-it-failure-warning-39122638/" title="silicon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/07/27/5bn-nhs-it-failure-warning-39122638/</a> [silicon.com]
<br> <br>
So if Gordon (who is a an ex TV journalist, in spite of his belief in his own enormous intellect) says is going to knock us up a few pages with an out of date copy of Dreammweaver, we shouldn't take this too seriously, right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And these announcements are coming thick and fast .
Also , UK government 's record on successful system implementation is very expensive and patchy ( to say the least ) : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk \ _politics/591645.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] That 's the best link I can find quickly , does n't include failure at the Student Load system : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/student \ _loan \ _fail/ [ theregister.co.uk ] , Child Protection Agency : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3235394.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] and the monstrous Hational Health System : http : //www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/07/27/5bn-nhs-it-failure-warning-39122638/ [ silicon.com ] So if Gordon ( who is a an ex TV journalist , in spite of his belief in his own enormous intellect ) says is going to knock us up a few pages with an out of date copy of Dreammweaver , we should n't take this too seriously , right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And these announcements are coming thick and fast.
Also, UK government's record on successful system implementation is very expensive and patchy (to say the least): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/591645.stm [bbc.co.uk] That's the best link I can find quickly, doesn't include failure at the Student Load system: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/student\_loan\_fail/ [theregister.co.uk], Child Protection Agency: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3235394.stm [bbc.co.uk] and the monstrous Hational Health System: http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/07/27/5bn-nhs-it-failure-warning-39122638/ [silicon.com]
 
So if Gordon (who is a an ex TV journalist, in spite of his belief in his own enormous intellect) says is going to knock us up a few pages with an out of date copy of Dreammweaver, we shouldn't take this too seriously, right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556054</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1269166380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny that you say that, considering neocons have done far more to grow government and massively pile up our national debt than Democrats have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that you say that , considering neocons have done far more to grow government and massively pile up our national debt than Democrats have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that you say that, considering neocons have done far more to grow government and massively pile up our national debt than Democrats have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554664</id>
	<title>Hackers Paradise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The much bigger issue is, how hard is it going to be for the wrong person to look at this? Like hackers or whatever. Does anyone really think that the UK gov will do a great job at protecting everyone's info?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The much bigger issue is , how hard is it going to be for the wrong person to look at this ?
Like hackers or whatever .
Does anyone really think that the UK gov will do a great job at protecting everyone 's info ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The much bigger issue is, how hard is it going to be for the wrong person to look at this?
Like hackers or whatever.
Does anyone really think that the UK gov will do a great job at protecting everyone's info?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31595400</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269430740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most UK public libraries have free internet access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most UK public libraries have free internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most UK public libraries have free internet access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1269089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, what?</p><p>As far as I can tell, no new information is being collected.  They're simply moving from paper to bits -- the sort of thing that most Slashdotters would have encouraged before we were invaded by the Ayn Rand disciples.  It makes the government more accessible, convenient, and efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , what ? As far as I can tell , no new information is being collected .
They 're simply moving from paper to bits -- the sort of thing that most Slashdotters would have encouraged before we were invaded by the Ayn Rand disciples .
It makes the government more accessible , convenient , and efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, what?As far as I can tell, no new information is being collected.
They're simply moving from paper to bits -- the sort of thing that most Slashdotters would have encouraged before we were invaded by the Ayn Rand disciples.
It makes the government more accessible, convenient, and efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553306</id>
	<title>Copyright infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, how does this fit in with the plans to disconnect the families of people who are accused of copyright infringement? I guess media companies are going to be able to get anyone they don't like prosecuted for tax evasion too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how does this fit in with the plans to disconnect the families of people who are accused of copyright infringement ?
I guess media companies are going to be able to get anyone they do n't like prosecuted for tax evasion too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how does this fit in with the plans to disconnect the families of people who are accused of copyright infringement?
I guess media companies are going to be able to get anyone they don't like prosecuted for tax evasion too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1269202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is not the transition from paper to online interactions; in an ideal world, you're entirely correct that the savings are worthwhile and it's not like doing it on a web form directly is much different than visiting a local office to fill in a paper form, that the first thing you then see the clerk do is tap into a computer.</p><p>There are however issues with this plan. First, this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan, at huge cost with marginal or no functional end product - the current plan to put all NHS patient records online for doctor's to use is massive behind, massively overbudget and still not working properly in the trial areas, and that's just one example. This government able to manage the build of a personalized portal access to every government service in a year? Hah. 10 years, at 10 times overbudget with it barely useable and constant crashes? Yes, maybe.</p><p>The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who cannot get broadband at all (or only a very, very slow broadband), and also a significant number of those that can don't want it. Some 50\% of the population can't yet get ADSL2+, and only 75\% of the population can get broadband from anyone other than BT. Some 7\% of the population can't get broadband at all, and under current plans, probably never will. If they're going to make this site the *only* way to access these services by shutting down local offices, as planned, they're going to basically require everyone to own a computer and have a broadband connection. In addition to those in rural areas, you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised (given the rate libraries are closing, that won't be an option for the poor in 10 years)</p><p>Finally - the government is trying to rush through the Digital Economy Bill, which amongst other things, introduces a '3 strikes' law that will result in people's internet connections being crippled merely by being accused of copyright infringement by the content industry. Although people will not be cut off in this version of the bill, it also contains scope to introduce 'additional technical measures' at will, which would include cutting off people's internet connection if the current measures don't result in the goal of a 70\% cut in piracy in the next couple of years, so pretty much a certainty. It also means that public access wifi in cafes etc will be shutdown, along with pretty much all cybershops, as it will make them liable for any copyright infringement their customers commit. So there goes another method that people without computers had of accessing this super site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is not the transition from paper to online interactions ; in an ideal world , you 're entirely correct that the savings are worthwhile and it 's not like doing it on a web form directly is much different than visiting a local office to fill in a paper form , that the first thing you then see the clerk do is tap into a computer.There are however issues with this plan .
First , this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan , at huge cost with marginal or no functional end product - the current plan to put all NHS patient records online for doctor 's to use is massive behind , massively overbudget and still not working properly in the trial areas , and that 's just one example .
This government able to manage the build of a personalized portal access to every government service in a year ?
Hah. 10 years , at 10 times overbudget with it barely useable and constant crashes ?
Yes , maybe.The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who can not get broadband at all ( or only a very , very slow broadband ) , and also a significant number of those that can do n't want it .
Some 50 \ % of the population ca n't yet get ADSL2 + , and only 75 \ % of the population can get broadband from anyone other than BT .
Some 7 \ % of the population ca n't get broadband at all , and under current plans , probably never will .
If they 're going to make this site the * only * way to access these services by shutting down local offices , as planned , they 're going to basically require everyone to own a computer and have a broadband connection .
In addition to those in rural areas , you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised ( given the rate libraries are closing , that wo n't be an option for the poor in 10 years ) Finally - the government is trying to rush through the Digital Economy Bill , which amongst other things , introduces a '3 strikes ' law that will result in people 's internet connections being crippled merely by being accused of copyright infringement by the content industry .
Although people will not be cut off in this version of the bill , it also contains scope to introduce 'additional technical measures ' at will , which would include cutting off people 's internet connection if the current measures do n't result in the goal of a 70 \ % cut in piracy in the next couple of years , so pretty much a certainty .
It also means that public access wifi in cafes etc will be shutdown , along with pretty much all cybershops , as it will make them liable for any copyright infringement their customers commit .
So there goes another method that people without computers had of accessing this super site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is not the transition from paper to online interactions; in an ideal world, you're entirely correct that the savings are worthwhile and it's not like doing it on a web form directly is much different than visiting a local office to fill in a paper form, that the first thing you then see the clerk do is tap into a computer.There are however issues with this plan.
First, this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan, at huge cost with marginal or no functional end product - the current plan to put all NHS patient records online for doctor's to use is massive behind, massively overbudget and still not working properly in the trial areas, and that's just one example.
This government able to manage the build of a personalized portal access to every government service in a year?
Hah. 10 years, at 10 times overbudget with it barely useable and constant crashes?
Yes, maybe.The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who cannot get broadband at all (or only a very, very slow broadband), and also a significant number of those that can don't want it.
Some 50\% of the population can't yet get ADSL2+, and only 75\% of the population can get broadband from anyone other than BT.
Some 7\% of the population can't get broadband at all, and under current plans, probably never will.
If they're going to make this site the *only* way to access these services by shutting down local offices, as planned, they're going to basically require everyone to own a computer and have a broadband connection.
In addition to those in rural areas, you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised (given the rate libraries are closing, that won't be an option for the poor in 10 years)Finally - the government is trying to rush through the Digital Economy Bill, which amongst other things, introduces a '3 strikes' law that will result in people's internet connections being crippled merely by being accused of copyright infringement by the content industry.
Although people will not be cut off in this version of the bill, it also contains scope to introduce 'additional technical measures' at will, which would include cutting off people's internet connection if the current measures don't result in the goal of a 70\% cut in piracy in the next couple of years, so pretty much a certainty.
It also means that public access wifi in cafes etc will be shutdown, along with pretty much all cybershops, as it will make them liable for any copyright infringement their customers commit.
So there goes another method that people without computers had of accessing this super site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554670</id>
	<title>personal webpage versus three strikes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good thing about having to go online for all this essential government services is that it makes even more unconstitutional the whole idea of the government kicking people off the internet ala 3-strikes, so there could be more resistance to 3-strikes citing this as a reason. -- Darren Duncan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good thing about having to go online for all this essential government services is that it makes even more unconstitutional the whole idea of the government kicking people off the internet ala 3-strikes , so there could be more resistance to 3-strikes citing this as a reason .
-- Darren Duncan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good thing about having to go online for all this essential government services is that it makes even more unconstitutional the whole idea of the government kicking people off the internet ala 3-strikes, so there could be more resistance to 3-strikes citing this as a reason.
-- Darren Duncan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555066</id>
	<title>name it Turkey-shooting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269105780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this shows just how retarded the avg person is on the net.<br>go get lampp or xampp and fuck the govt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this shows just how retarded the avg person is on the net.go get lampp or xampp and fuck the govt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this shows just how retarded the avg person is on the net.go get lampp or xampp and fuck the govt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557214</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>blonkm</author>
	<datestamp>1269183120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I don't see the issue of needing broadband. Presenting the options "apply for passport, pay taxes" takes only a couple of bytes and can be presented bare bones using just a cell phone. Is there anyone who is unable to get a working cell phone in Britain? A 1985 1200b modem could handle it, you know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't see the issue of needing broadband .
Presenting the options " apply for passport , pay taxes " takes only a couple of bytes and can be presented bare bones using just a cell phone .
Is there anyone who is unable to get a working cell phone in Britain ?
A 1985 1200b modem could handle it , you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't see the issue of needing broadband.
Presenting the options "apply for passport, pay taxes" takes only a couple of bytes and can be presented bare bones using just a cell phone.
Is there anyone who is unable to get a working cell phone in Britain?
A 1985 1200b modem could handle it, you know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553526</id>
	<title>Re:on the dole, VS on the dole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that if they lose their unproductive jobs, some of them can actually take productive jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that if they lose their unproductive jobs , some of them can actually take productive jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that if they lose their unproductive jobs, some of them can actually take productive jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553470</id>
	<title>I don't see the problem said the milch cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once all transactions are on line, your anonymity will be completely gone. The government will be able to monitor what you buy, how much you pay, who you speak to, where you travel to, who with, and for how long. They will know who you phone, who you email, where you work, when you sleep, how much electricity, gas and petrol you use.</p><p>That's not all. Once you are reliant on the internet and your mobile phone for services, the government will be able to selectively cut off those services too. Yours, anyone you associate with, the members of the same political party. They can - and do - stop all cell phone calls in areas when they believe there is reason to do so, or simply disable selected phones, and impose news blackouts to prevent your associates finding out. The compliant press aid and abet them.</p><p>From now on in, you will conform whether you like it or not. They don't need to put you in prison. You are under control right where you are - going about your daily business.</p><p>The milch cows will declare, "I don't see the problem" as they chew the cud while waiting their turn to be milked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once all transactions are on line , your anonymity will be completely gone .
The government will be able to monitor what you buy , how much you pay , who you speak to , where you travel to , who with , and for how long .
They will know who you phone , who you email , where you work , when you sleep , how much electricity , gas and petrol you use.That 's not all .
Once you are reliant on the internet and your mobile phone for services , the government will be able to selectively cut off those services too .
Yours , anyone you associate with , the members of the same political party .
They can - and do - stop all cell phone calls in areas when they believe there is reason to do so , or simply disable selected phones , and impose news blackouts to prevent your associates finding out .
The compliant press aid and abet them.From now on in , you will conform whether you like it or not .
They do n't need to put you in prison .
You are under control right where you are - going about your daily business.The milch cows will declare , " I do n't see the problem " as they chew the cud while waiting their turn to be milked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once all transactions are on line, your anonymity will be completely gone.
The government will be able to monitor what you buy, how much you pay, who you speak to, where you travel to, who with, and for how long.
They will know who you phone, who you email, where you work, when you sleep, how much electricity, gas and petrol you use.That's not all.
Once you are reliant on the internet and your mobile phone for services, the government will be able to selectively cut off those services too.
Yours, anyone you associate with, the members of the same political party.
They can - and do - stop all cell phone calls in areas when they believe there is reason to do so, or simply disable selected phones, and impose news blackouts to prevent your associates finding out.
The compliant press aid and abet them.From now on in, you will conform whether you like it or not.
They don't need to put you in prison.
You are under control right where you are - going about your daily business.The milch cows will declare, "I don't see the problem" as they chew the cud while waiting their turn to be milked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</id>
	<title>Surveillance.</title>
	<author>daniel.waterfield</author>
	<datestamp>1269086580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on. All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail. Much nicer for the government to follow than before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on .
All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail .
Much nicer for the government to follow than before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on.
All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail.
Much nicer for the government to follow than before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556386</id>
	<title>Re:Eroding specialist knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269171420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate.  If you're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to (possibly) find the information you're interested in.  Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance.  I'm happy "wasting" some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide "someone who knows" without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task.</p></div><p>With the modern trend of outsourcing it should be easy to have a call centre in India handle all these inquiries. Yes, I a being sarcastic... about outsourcing not about reducing the deadwood in government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate .
If you 're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to ( possibly ) find the information you 're interested in .
Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance .
I 'm happy " wasting " some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide " someone who knows " without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task.With the modern trend of outsourcing it should be easy to have a call centre in India handle all these inquiries .
Yes , I a being sarcastic... about outsourcing not about reducing the deadwood in government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate.
If you're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to (possibly) find the information you're interested in.
Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance.
I'm happy "wasting" some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide "someone who knows" without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task.With the modern trend of outsourcing it should be easy to have a call centre in India handle all these inquiries.
Yes, I a being sarcastic... about outsourcing not about reducing the deadwood in government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557640</id>
	<title>Will it have a tilde-username?</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1269187320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>brits.uk/~username

?</htmltext>
<tokenext>brits.uk/ ~ username ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>brits.uk/~username

?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555954</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1269164760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its another big and ambitious British government IT project.</p><p>The usual outcome is consultants and contractors make lots of money, and it is implemented a decade late, if at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its another big and ambitious British government IT project.The usual outcome is consultants and contractors make lots of money , and it is implemented a decade late , if at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its another big and ambitious British government IT project.The usual outcome is consultants and contractors make lots of money, and it is implemented a decade late, if at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556052</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>lul\_wat</author>
	<datestamp>1269166380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They see me trollin.. they hatin</htmltext>
<tokenext>They see me trollin.. they hatin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They see me trollin.. they hatin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553496</id>
	<title>Re:on the dole, VS on the dole</title>
	<author>robot256</author>
	<datestamp>1269089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again a demonstration of why adjusting policies to save <b>specific</b> jobs is totally bass-ackwards.  This is the same as forcing GM to keep too many dealerships open.  Using politics to subsidize or arm-wrestle certain jobs from going extinct hurts the free market and prevents those people from actually being productive in the economy.  The only legitimate use of power is to alter policies for the public good and let the market decide what jobs are and are not required to serve that public good.  And in this case, the public good means saving money on bureaucracies so it can be spent actually helping people.
</p><p>[Cue cynical comments in response to reasoned idealism.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again a demonstration of why adjusting policies to save specific jobs is totally bass-ackwards .
This is the same as forcing GM to keep too many dealerships open .
Using politics to subsidize or arm-wrestle certain jobs from going extinct hurts the free market and prevents those people from actually being productive in the economy .
The only legitimate use of power is to alter policies for the public good and let the market decide what jobs are and are not required to serve that public good .
And in this case , the public good means saving money on bureaucracies so it can be spent actually helping people .
[ Cue cynical comments in response to reasoned idealism .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again a demonstration of why adjusting policies to save specific jobs is totally bass-ackwards.
This is the same as forcing GM to keep too many dealerships open.
Using politics to subsidize or arm-wrestle certain jobs from going extinct hurts the free market and prevents those people from actually being productive in the economy.
The only legitimate use of power is to alter policies for the public good and let the market decide what jobs are and are not required to serve that public good.
And in this case, the public good means saving money on bureaucracies so it can be spent actually helping people.
[Cue cynical comments in response to reasoned idealism.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553278</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1269087900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With suitably malicious design, it could be a very convenient tool for surveillance(<a href="http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/javascript-visited-link-scanner/" title="gnucitizen.org">a visited link scanner</a> [gnucitizen.org] seeded with a list of URLs that the feds might be interested in your having visited, would be a trivial example, various sorts of cookie snooping, cross-site scripting, history inference, and so forth attacks could also be used, in addition to boring old IP geolocation and date/timestamping).<br> <br>

However, in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features(which would fly right past the noobs; but would be hard to hide from security researchers for more than a few minutes), I'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference. In both cases, you are doing some nontrivial data dump/exchange with the state, either because some law obliges you to, or because you want the state to do something for you based on that information. <i>That act</i> of data transfer is the point of the exercise, and occurs in either case. Also, unless the British civil service is <i>far</i> behind the times, the data end up being dumped in a big database somewhere no matter which frontend you use. It isn't as though a people and paper frontend implies a people and paper backend, just a more expensive translation process.<br> <br>

With the exception of fairly visible malicious techniques, a web site doesn't provide all that much useful information in itself. Any attempt by the state to use such techniques should, of course, by resisted fiercely by both technological and political means; but fretting about cookies is largely a distraction from the serious area of data disclosure, which is whatever forms you are going to the website explicitly to fill out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With suitably malicious design , it could be a very convenient tool for surveillance ( a visited link scanner [ gnucitizen.org ] seeded with a list of URLs that the feds might be interested in your having visited , would be a trivial example , various sorts of cookie snooping , cross-site scripting , history inference , and so forth attacks could also be used , in addition to boring old IP geolocation and date/timestamping ) .
However , in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features ( which would fly right past the noobs ; but would be hard to hide from security researchers for more than a few minutes ) , I 'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference .
In both cases , you are doing some nontrivial data dump/exchange with the state , either because some law obliges you to , or because you want the state to do something for you based on that information .
That act of data transfer is the point of the exercise , and occurs in either case .
Also , unless the British civil service is far behind the times , the data end up being dumped in a big database somewhere no matter which frontend you use .
It is n't as though a people and paper frontend implies a people and paper backend , just a more expensive translation process .
With the exception of fairly visible malicious techniques , a web site does n't provide all that much useful information in itself .
Any attempt by the state to use such techniques should , of course , by resisted fiercely by both technological and political means ; but fretting about cookies is largely a distraction from the serious area of data disclosure , which is whatever forms you are going to the website explicitly to fill out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With suitably malicious design, it could be a very convenient tool for surveillance(a visited link scanner [gnucitizen.org] seeded with a list of URLs that the feds might be interested in your having visited, would be a trivial example, various sorts of cookie snooping, cross-site scripting, history inference, and so forth attacks could also be used, in addition to boring old IP geolocation and date/timestamping).
However, in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features(which would fly right past the noobs; but would be hard to hide from security researchers for more than a few minutes), I'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference.
In both cases, you are doing some nontrivial data dump/exchange with the state, either because some law obliges you to, or because you want the state to do something for you based on that information.
That act of data transfer is the point of the exercise, and occurs in either case.
Also, unless the British civil service is far behind the times, the data end up being dumped in a big database somewhere no matter which frontend you use.
It isn't as though a people and paper frontend implies a people and paper backend, just a more expensive translation process.
With the exception of fairly visible malicious techniques, a web site doesn't provide all that much useful information in itself.
Any attempt by the state to use such techniques should, of course, by resisted fiercely by both technological and political means; but fretting about cookies is largely a distraction from the serious area of data disclosure, which is whatever forms you are going to the website explicitly to fill out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554428</id>
	<title>Like This Is A Surprise...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1269098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government's poor record of handling personal data.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Like this is a surprise to anyone? If the unions had their way we'd all still be riding horses as long as the horse industry protected union jobs.  How long before people - even union people - realize that more unions == lower productivity and a lower standard of living?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government 's poor record of handling personal data .
Like this is a surprise to anyone ?
If the unions had their way we 'd all still be riding horses as long as the horse industry protected union jobs .
How long before people - even union people - realize that more unions = = lower productivity and a lower standard of living ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless and pointed to the Government's poor record of handling personal data.
Like this is a surprise to anyone?
If the unions had their way we'd all still be riding horses as long as the horse industry protected union jobs.
How long before people - even union people - realize that more unions == lower productivity and a lower standard of living?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556166</id>
	<title>Gordon the Gimmick</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1269168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes Gordon the Gimmick think he'll be in power in ten weeks, let alone ten years?  By then he'll be a historical bogey man, Stalin to Maggie Thatchers's Hitler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Gordon the Gimmick think he 'll be in power in ten weeks , let alone ten years ?
By then he 'll be a historical bogey man , Stalin to Maggie Thatchers 's Hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Gordon the Gimmick think he'll be in power in ten weeks, let alone ten years?
By then he'll be a historical bogey man, Stalin to Maggie Thatchers's Hitler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614</id>
	<title>Leave it to the unions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to stand in the way of progress.  Unions have a long history of holding milking their employers with little regard to the overall health of the business (who cares if GM is going down the toilet, so long as the retired union guys gets their pension) .  Here is yet another case where they are holding their own pocketbooks as more important than all else.  As a tax payer, I'd rather see the govt get rid of agencies that are manually processing paperwork (inconsistently at that) and automate as much as possible.  However, I do strongly feel that you should be able to reach a real person if something needs straightened out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to stand in the way of progress .
Unions have a long history of holding milking their employers with little regard to the overall health of the business ( who cares if GM is going down the toilet , so long as the retired union guys gets their pension ) .
Here is yet another case where they are holding their own pocketbooks as more important than all else .
As a tax payer , I 'd rather see the govt get rid of agencies that are manually processing paperwork ( inconsistently at that ) and automate as much as possible .
However , I do strongly feel that you should be able to reach a real person if something needs straightened out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... to stand in the way of progress.
Unions have a long history of holding milking their employers with little regard to the overall health of the business (who cares if GM is going down the toilet, so long as the retired union guys gets their pension) .
Here is yet another case where they are holding their own pocketbooks as more important than all else.
As a tax payer, I'd rather see the govt get rid of agencies that are manually processing paperwork (inconsistently at that) and automate as much as possible.
However, I do strongly feel that you should be able to reach a real person if something needs straightened out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553426</id>
	<title>Combine this with the ACTA for added fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, according to various things being planned:<br>In order to access governmental services, you need an internet connection.<br>If you are accused three times of copyright infringement, you are banned from using the internet for a minimum of a year. (I haven't heard any real specifics given, but that was mentioned as a minimum.)<br>In other words, get accused three times and in addition to your whole household going on an internet access blacklist, you also lose access to a large chunk of governmental services.<br>And I live there. Words cannot express my unbounded joy at this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , according to various things being planned : In order to access governmental services , you need an internet connection.If you are accused three times of copyright infringement , you are banned from using the internet for a minimum of a year .
( I have n't heard any real specifics given , but that was mentioned as a minimum .
) In other words , get accused three times and in addition to your whole household going on an internet access blacklist , you also lose access to a large chunk of governmental services.And I live there .
Words can not express my unbounded joy at this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, according to various things being planned:In order to access governmental services, you need an internet connection.If you are accused three times of copyright infringement, you are banned from using the internet for a minimum of a year.
(I haven't heard any real specifics given, but that was mentioned as a minimum.
)In other words, get accused three times and in addition to your whole household going on an internet access blacklist, you also lose access to a large chunk of governmental services.And I live there.
Words cannot express my unbounded joy at this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563318</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1269190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only protection of our freedom lies in the fact that "pushing papers is difficult," then we probably need to amend the laws, rather than opposing technological innovations that the private sector embraced decades ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only protection of our freedom lies in the fact that " pushing papers is difficult , " then we probably need to amend the laws , rather than opposing technological innovations that the private sector embraced decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only protection of our freedom lies in the fact that "pushing papers is difficult," then we probably need to amend the laws, rather than opposing technological innovations that the private sector embraced decades ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554530</id>
	<title>I think it's a law</title>
	<author>iplayfast</author>
	<datestamp>1269099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every ease of use that a computer can give a person, the government will increase the complication in order to make up the difference.</p><p>This is why taxes need to be done with computers now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every ease of use that a computer can give a person , the government will increase the complication in order to make up the difference.This is why taxes need to be done with computers now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every ease of use that a computer can give a person, the government will increase the complication in order to make up the difference.This is why taxes need to be done with computers now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556626</id>
	<title>Another disasterous scheme</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1269175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tim should get out more, maybe visit a job centre.  Many of the people applying for the benefits available are unable to fill in the paper forms, and need the help of experienced form interpreters, some of whom can actually spell some words.</p><p>The forms themselves are unintelligible because they must follow tortuously constructed regulations based on incomprehensible legislation.  They are expressed in a jargon unknown to non-governmental employees or specialist advisors.  The website will either (1) follow these forms and be unintelligible or (2) be reworded in a kind of baby talk that misdirects the user.  Guaranteed - garbage in, nothing out.</p><p>On past performance of UK government to do anything with computers or information, we have nothing to fear but further waste of our money, taken as tax and given to (foreign) consultancies.<br>--<br>A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim should get out more , maybe visit a job centre .
Many of the people applying for the benefits available are unable to fill in the paper forms , and need the help of experienced form interpreters , some of whom can actually spell some words.The forms themselves are unintelligible because they must follow tortuously constructed regulations based on incomprehensible legislation .
They are expressed in a jargon unknown to non-governmental employees or specialist advisors .
The website will either ( 1 ) follow these forms and be unintelligible or ( 2 ) be reworded in a kind of baby talk that misdirects the user .
Guaranteed - garbage in , nothing out.On past performance of UK government to do anything with computers or information , we have nothing to fear but further waste of our money , taken as tax and given to ( foreign ) consultancies.--A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tim should get out more, maybe visit a job centre.
Many of the people applying for the benefits available are unable to fill in the paper forms, and need the help of experienced form interpreters, some of whom can actually spell some words.The forms themselves are unintelligible because they must follow tortuously constructed regulations based on incomprehensible legislation.
They are expressed in a jargon unknown to non-governmental employees or specialist advisors.
The website will either (1) follow these forms and be unintelligible or (2) be reworded in a kind of baby talk that misdirects the user.
Guaranteed - garbage in, nothing out.On past performance of UK government to do anything with computers or information, we have nothing to fear but further waste of our money, taken as tax and given to (foreign) consultancies.--A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553688</id>
	<title>Luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made jobless</p><p>Your job doesn't exist for the sake of providing you with employment. It exists because it needs doing. If your job is obsoleted by technology - a process that has been ongoing since the industrial revolution - get another goddamn job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; However , the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made joblessYour job does n't exist for the sake of providing you with employment .
It exists because it needs doing .
If your job is obsoleted by technology - a process that has been ongoing since the industrial revolution - get another goddamn job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; However, the proposals are coming under fire from union leaders who complain that thousands of public sector workers would be made joblessYour job doesn't exist for the sake of providing you with employment.
It exists because it needs doing.
If your job is obsoleted by technology - a process that has been ongoing since the industrial revolution - get another goddamn job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468</id>
	<title>I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...after all, we're talking about access to stuff which was traditionally handled with paper. The only difference is that an electronic trail is easier to follow than a paper trail -- but here, "easier" only means "less time-consuming," or, alternatively, "cheaper."</p><p>Here in the US, we have the option of filing our taxes online, or mailing in a paper form. Either way is going to include our social security number, along with a bunch of other personally identifying information. Either way might lead to our personal information being leaked or abused. The only real difference is that the online version is faster and potentially <i>more</i> secure -- properly done, I'll trust cryptography long before I'll trust the postal service.</p><p>Same with vehicle licensing, passports, housing, everything else they mention -- again, which of these is something you used to be able to do anonymously? In what way does <i>merely putting these in a web browser</i> make it easier to keep an eye on you?</p><p>Even if you find some marginal benefit to paper -- and it will be marginal -- is it worth the cost, the increased amount of fuel burned transporting it, the paper, the increased amount of fuel used to harvest the wood, make the paper, and recycle/destroy/bury it once used? How about the increased cost to the state of employing all those people to deal with the paper -- the same people who are currently whining about losing their jobs -- how much would it be worth to have them doing something <i>actually productive</i> instead of something a webserver could do for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...after all , we 're talking about access to stuff which was traditionally handled with paper .
The only difference is that an electronic trail is easier to follow than a paper trail -- but here , " easier " only means " less time-consuming , " or , alternatively , " cheaper .
" Here in the US , we have the option of filing our taxes online , or mailing in a paper form .
Either way is going to include our social security number , along with a bunch of other personally identifying information .
Either way might lead to our personal information being leaked or abused .
The only real difference is that the online version is faster and potentially more secure -- properly done , I 'll trust cryptography long before I 'll trust the postal service.Same with vehicle licensing , passports , housing , everything else they mention -- again , which of these is something you used to be able to do anonymously ?
In what way does merely putting these in a web browser make it easier to keep an eye on you ? Even if you find some marginal benefit to paper -- and it will be marginal -- is it worth the cost , the increased amount of fuel burned transporting it , the paper , the increased amount of fuel used to harvest the wood , make the paper , and recycle/destroy/bury it once used ?
How about the increased cost to the state of employing all those people to deal with the paper -- the same people who are currently whining about losing their jobs -- how much would it be worth to have them doing something actually productive instead of something a webserver could do for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...after all, we're talking about access to stuff which was traditionally handled with paper.
The only difference is that an electronic trail is easier to follow than a paper trail -- but here, "easier" only means "less time-consuming," or, alternatively, "cheaper.
"Here in the US, we have the option of filing our taxes online, or mailing in a paper form.
Either way is going to include our social security number, along with a bunch of other personally identifying information.
Either way might lead to our personal information being leaked or abused.
The only real difference is that the online version is faster and potentially more secure -- properly done, I'll trust cryptography long before I'll trust the postal service.Same with vehicle licensing, passports, housing, everything else they mention -- again, which of these is something you used to be able to do anonymously?
In what way does merely putting these in a web browser make it easier to keep an eye on you?Even if you find some marginal benefit to paper -- and it will be marginal -- is it worth the cost, the increased amount of fuel burned transporting it, the paper, the increased amount of fuel used to harvest the wood, make the paper, and recycle/destroy/bury it once used?
How about the increased cost to the state of employing all those people to deal with the paper -- the same people who are currently whining about losing their jobs -- how much would it be worth to have them doing something actually productive instead of something a webserver could do for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31561678</id>
	<title>The Torygraph speaks ...</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1269177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I contemplate whether to print the story on nice, soft paper. Enough said?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I contemplate whether to print the story on nice , soft paper .
Enough said ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I contemplate whether to print the story on nice, soft paper.
Enough said?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of paperwork and legwork to get anything government-related done is untolerable in this day and age. We should have been enjoying electronic government for at least 15 years by now. Finally someone up there is getting it.</p><p>Now half of the posts here will be about the stupid "personal webpage" phrasing that has nothing to do with the actual idea, and the other half will be about an Orwellian apocalypse. Which may be well-grounded, as British government earned some bad reputation in regards to privacy.</p><p>However, I would still argue that this is a step in the right direction, and it is inevitable in the long run. We as a technical community should suggest ways to protect privacy with proper modern protocols, not with the obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.</p><p>I also hope that the governments in other countries will follow the example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of paperwork and legwork to get anything government-related done is untolerable in this day and age .
We should have been enjoying electronic government for at least 15 years by now .
Finally someone up there is getting it.Now half of the posts here will be about the stupid " personal webpage " phrasing that has nothing to do with the actual idea , and the other half will be about an Orwellian apocalypse .
Which may be well-grounded , as British government earned some bad reputation in regards to privacy.However , I would still argue that this is a step in the right direction , and it is inevitable in the long run .
We as a technical community should suggest ways to protect privacy with proper modern protocols , not with the obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.I also hope that the governments in other countries will follow the example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of paperwork and legwork to get anything government-related done is untolerable in this day and age.
We should have been enjoying electronic government for at least 15 years by now.
Finally someone up there is getting it.Now half of the posts here will be about the stupid "personal webpage" phrasing that has nothing to do with the actual idea, and the other half will be about an Orwellian apocalypse.
Which may be well-grounded, as British government earned some bad reputation in regards to privacy.However, I would still argue that this is a step in the right direction, and it is inevitable in the long run.
We as a technical community should suggest ways to protect privacy with proper modern protocols, not with the obscurity of 18th century style paperwork.I also hope that the governments in other countries will follow the example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553598</id>
	<title>Canada has this already</title>
	<author>dieth</author>
	<datestamp>1269090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used to to file my EI reports, my Income Tax, and to bitch at my elected representatives for being sell outs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used to to file my EI reports , my Income Tax , and to bitch at my elected representatives for being sell outs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used to to file my EI reports, my Income Tax, and to bitch at my elected representatives for being sell outs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555966</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269165060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to have to pop your bubble.<br>Because you don't SEE.</p><p>a.) Here in the US, we use electronic vote tabulation devices for our elections, we don't oversee the doping process of the chips, we don't oversee the coding process of the programming the chips, and the moment a ballot is digitized is is by definition a "Broken Chain of Custody"   since Humans can not see electronic signals.  Considering Now a company is going to own 70\% of all electronic voting machines and the CORRUPTION which has followed electronic vote tabulation devices since they were first introduced.  Indeed Paper Ballots with Public Oversight consisting of an unbroken chain of custody will always be more secure than any electronic vote tabulation device.</p><p>b.) Historical Database Security Failures</p><p>c.) Historical Webserver's Cracked From Security Failures</p><p>d.) MIM  attacks for IDentity theft.</p><p>e.) No electricity, no Data.</p><p>f.) You mentioned passports, well they might not have been "anonymous" a paper passport didn't BROADCAST your data.</p><p>g.) You want to talk about corruption at DMV?</p><p>h.) it always starts out as "something good" but corruption always exploits the situation until it ends up being bad.</p><p>I could go on an on.  I know I sound negative here, but maybe I just have a really sour taste in my mouth from how the USA exploits electronics, and over the last ten years this has allowed corruption to destroy our Constitution, Civil Rights, and our wonderful monetary system, this slices your argument to shreds, without getting into all that other crap.</p><p>On the other hand, government do whatever the hell they want these days, the law be damned, screw the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to have to pop your bubble.Because you do n't SEE.a .
) Here in the US , we use electronic vote tabulation devices for our elections , we do n't oversee the doping process of the chips , we do n't oversee the coding process of the programming the chips , and the moment a ballot is digitized is is by definition a " Broken Chain of Custody " since Humans can not see electronic signals .
Considering Now a company is going to own 70 \ % of all electronic voting machines and the CORRUPTION which has followed electronic vote tabulation devices since they were first introduced .
Indeed Paper Ballots with Public Oversight consisting of an unbroken chain of custody will always be more secure than any electronic vote tabulation device.b .
) Historical Database Security Failuresc .
) Historical Webserver 's Cracked From Security Failuresd .
) MIM attacks for IDentity theft.e .
) No electricity , no Data.f .
) You mentioned passports , well they might not have been " anonymous " a paper passport did n't BROADCAST your data.g .
) You want to talk about corruption at DMV ? h .
) it always starts out as " something good " but corruption always exploits the situation until it ends up being bad.I could go on an on .
I know I sound negative here , but maybe I just have a really sour taste in my mouth from how the USA exploits electronics , and over the last ten years this has allowed corruption to destroy our Constitution , Civil Rights , and our wonderful monetary system , this slices your argument to shreds , without getting into all that other crap.On the other hand , government do whatever the hell they want these days , the law be damned , screw the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to have to pop your bubble.Because you don't SEE.a.
) Here in the US, we use electronic vote tabulation devices for our elections, we don't oversee the doping process of the chips, we don't oversee the coding process of the programming the chips, and the moment a ballot is digitized is is by definition a "Broken Chain of Custody"   since Humans can not see electronic signals.
Considering Now a company is going to own 70\% of all electronic voting machines and the CORRUPTION which has followed electronic vote tabulation devices since they were first introduced.
Indeed Paper Ballots with Public Oversight consisting of an unbroken chain of custody will always be more secure than any electronic vote tabulation device.b.
) Historical Database Security Failuresc.
) Historical Webserver's Cracked From Security Failuresd.
) MIM  attacks for IDentity theft.e.
) No electricity, no Data.f.
) You mentioned passports, well they might not have been "anonymous" a paper passport didn't BROADCAST your data.g.
) You want to talk about corruption at DMV?h.
) it always starts out as "something good" but corruption always exploits the situation until it ends up being bad.I could go on an on.
I know I sound negative here, but maybe I just have a really sour taste in my mouth from how the USA exploits electronics, and over the last ten years this has allowed corruption to destroy our Constitution, Civil Rights, and our wonderful monetary system, this slices your argument to shreds, without getting into all that other crap.On the other hand, government do whatever the hell they want these days, the law be damned, screw the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553574</id>
	<title>Has everybody gone insane?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader.</p></div><p>If you can be replaced by a computer program, you're not providing valuable services. Dealing with the socio-economic effects of automation isn't trivial, but having people do jobs that don't need to be done by people is both degrading and economic suicide. See socialism.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax, vehicle licensing, passports and housing benefit within 10 years</p></div><p>Many of these require reliable identification, something which is very hard to do online. Perhaps the people who got fired from their physical office jobs will have to be rehired into fraud-detection jobs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government services</p></div><p>I pity the people who will manage the access passwords. A login system which is sufficiently secure for dealing with tax, passport and housing benefit matters must be a nightmare without end for the users and admins alike.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole, ' says one union leader.If you can be replaced by a computer program , you 're not providing valuable services .
Dealing with the socio-economic effects of automation is n't trivial , but having people do jobs that do n't need to be done by people is both degrading and economic suicide .
See socialism.The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax , vehicle licensing , passports and housing benefit within 10 yearsMany of these require reliable identification , something which is very hard to do online .
Perhaps the people who got fired from their physical office jobs will have to be rehired into fraud-detection jobs.everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government servicesI pity the people who will manage the access passwords .
A login system which is sufficiently secure for dealing with tax , passport and housing benefit matters must be a nightmare without end for the users and admins alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader.If you can be replaced by a computer program, you're not providing valuable services.
Dealing with the socio-economic effects of automation isn't trivial, but having people do jobs that don't need to be done by people is both degrading and economic suicide.
See socialism.The move could see the closure of job centers and physical offices dealing with tax, vehicle licensing, passports and housing benefit within 10 yearsMany of these require reliable identification, something which is very hard to do online.
Perhaps the people who got fired from their physical office jobs will have to be rehired into fraud-detection jobs.everyone in Great Britain will be given a personalized webpage for accessing Government servicesI pity the people who will manage the access passwords.
A login system which is sufficiently secure for dealing with tax, passport and housing benefit matters must be a nightmare without end for the users and admins alike.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553952</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Tassach</author>
	<datestamp>1269093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say, "Cool, one stop identity theft".   </p><p>I'm not even sure I want to even visit the UK anymore.   Shame, as the Tower of London has the best collection of medieval arms and armor in the world, and I was looking forward to seeing it one day.</p><p>Anyway, Brits, enjoy your police state.   Let us know how it works out for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say , " Cool , one stop identity theft " .
I 'm not even sure I want to even visit the UK anymore .
Shame , as the Tower of London has the best collection of medieval arms and armor in the world , and I was looking forward to seeing it one day.Anyway , Brits , enjoy your police state .
Let us know how it works out for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say, "Cool, one stop identity theft".
I'm not even sure I want to even visit the UK anymore.
Shame, as the Tower of London has the best collection of medieval arms and armor in the world, and I was looking forward to seeing it one day.Anyway, Brits, enjoy your police state.
Let us know how it works out for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558052</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the issue...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1269191700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan, at huge cost with marginal or no functional end product</p></div><p>Fair enough, though that suggests we should be addressing this issue, rather than shrugging and giving up on government IT in general.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who cannot get broadband at all (or only a very, very slow broadband),</p></div><p>So what? This isn't exactly the kind of application which requires broadband at all. Done right, it should work via dialup.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised...</p></div><p>I though there was a government plan in which people who can't afford it can apply for a free computer and Internet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(given the rate libraries are closing, that won't be an option for the poor in 10 years)</p></div><p>Again, that seems like a separate issue which should be addressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan , at huge cost with marginal or no functional end productFair enough , though that suggests we should be addressing this issue , rather than shrugging and giving up on government IT in general.The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who can not get broadband at all ( or only a very , very slow broadband ) ,So what ?
This is n't exactly the kind of application which requires broadband at all .
Done right , it should work via dialup.you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised...I though there was a government plan in which people who ca n't afford it can apply for a free computer and Internet .
( given the rate libraries are closing , that wo n't be an option for the poor in 10 years ) Again , that seems like a separate issue which should be addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, this government has screwed up IT plan after IT plan, at huge cost with marginal or no functional end productFair enough, though that suggests we should be addressing this issue, rather than shrugging and giving up on government IT in general.The next issue is that there are a significant proportion of the population who cannot get broadband at all (or only a very, very slow broadband),So what?
This isn't exactly the kind of application which requires broadband at all.
Done right, it should work via dialup.you can add poor people and many of the elderly to the list of the disenfranchised...I though there was a government plan in which people who can't afford it can apply for a free computer and Internet.
(given the rate libraries are closing, that won't be an option for the poor in 10 years)Again, that seems like a separate issue which should be addressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554310</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1269096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you serious?  This is GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK we're talking about.  Whether you fill it out in person or online there's ALWAYS a trail.  Of course the government is keeping track of who is licensing their cars, pets, and so forth.  That's the ENTIRE POINT OF A BLOODY LICENSE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
This is GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK we 're talking about .
Whether you fill it out in person or online there 's ALWAYS a trail .
Of course the government is keeping track of who is licensing their cars , pets , and so forth .
That 's the ENTIRE POINT OF A BLOODY LICENSE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
This is GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK we're talking about.
Whether you fill it out in person or online there's ALWAYS a trail.
Of course the government is keeping track of who is licensing their cars, pets, and so forth.
That's the ENTIRE POINT OF A BLOODY LICENSE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying something sane like this, but being on Slashdot, does that mean you're actually FOR the democrat's "HealthCare" plan?</p><p>You'd be surprised how many people hate the government, and can point to it's faults, yet saddle up with the "we'll do it better than the private sector" crowd.</p><p>You CAN NOT count on a government...any government...to meet your needs, and in this example, to stay out of your business if they decide to go for more power.</p><p>It's the explicit *reason* the American Experiment has reigned supreme for it's people, and it's neighbors for so long now. As soon as it starts being another communist 'also-ran', the world will dim for us all.</p><p>This issue comes from the kind of socialism the Brits have embraced. It's not total yet, but it's fairly sad. They were once world-dominators; now they can't keep the Muslims from setting up Sharia law and people cutting off hands inside their borders.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>I'm a big fan of the Brits, Aussies, even French and Russians...but the socialism *is* the problem. You won't get this kind of government intrusion with American Conservatism.  I just hope the republican party permits itself to use it, again.</p><p>The government that rules best, rules least.  --Ronald Regan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying something sane like this , but being on Slashdot , does that mean you 're actually FOR the democrat 's " HealthCare " plan ? You 'd be surprised how many people hate the government , and can point to it 's faults , yet saddle up with the " we 'll do it better than the private sector " crowd.You CAN NOT count on a government...any government...to meet your needs , and in this example , to stay out of your business if they decide to go for more power.It 's the explicit * reason * the American Experiment has reigned supreme for it 's people , and it 's neighbors for so long now .
As soon as it starts being another communist 'also-ran ' , the world will dim for us all.This issue comes from the kind of socialism the Brits have embraced .
It 's not total yet , but it 's fairly sad .
They were once world-dominators ; now they ca n't keep the Muslims from setting up Sharia law and people cutting off hands inside their borders .
: ( I 'm a big fan of the Brits , Aussies , even French and Russians...but the socialism * is * the problem .
You wo n't get this kind of government intrusion with American Conservatism .
I just hope the republican party permits itself to use it , again.The government that rules best , rules least .
--Ronald Regan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying something sane like this, but being on Slashdot, does that mean you're actually FOR the democrat's "HealthCare" plan?You'd be surprised how many people hate the government, and can point to it's faults, yet saddle up with the "we'll do it better than the private sector" crowd.You CAN NOT count on a government...any government...to meet your needs, and in this example, to stay out of your business if they decide to go for more power.It's the explicit *reason* the American Experiment has reigned supreme for it's people, and it's neighbors for so long now.
As soon as it starts being another communist 'also-ran', the world will dim for us all.This issue comes from the kind of socialism the Brits have embraced.
It's not total yet, but it's fairly sad.
They were once world-dominators; now they can't keep the Muslims from setting up Sharia law and people cutting off hands inside their borders.
:(I'm a big fan of the Brits, Aussies, even French and Russians...but the socialism *is* the problem.
You won't get this kind of government intrusion with American Conservatism.
I just hope the republican party permits itself to use it, again.The government that rules best, rules least.
--Ronald Regan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553394</id>
	<title>Outsourced surveillance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things instantly spring to mind:</p><p>1. they'll probably outsource this to some sweatshop Java coders in India, being the ultimate insult to British programmers.</p><p>2. it'll either be more Big Brother shite, or it will be so insecure as to be a farce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things instantly spring to mind : 1. they 'll probably outsource this to some sweatshop Java coders in India , being the ultimate insult to British programmers.2 .
it 'll either be more Big Brother shite , or it will be so insecure as to be a farce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things instantly spring to mind:1. they'll probably outsource this to some sweatshop Java coders in India, being the ultimate insult to British programmers.2.
it'll either be more Big Brother shite, or it will be so insecure as to be a farce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554586</id>
	<title>If ever there was a program that should be piloted</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1269099660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553490</id>
	<title>I'll sponsor the first contest.</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1269089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a wonderful way to have EVERYBODY's personal information in one easy-to-hack location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a wonderful way to have EVERYBODY 's personal information in one easy-to-hack location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a wonderful way to have EVERYBODY's personal information in one easy-to-hack location.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554810</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not why Obama's healthcare plan is a bad idea.  Whether it "works" or not is immaterial.  There are two aspects of the plan that are extremely troublesome.</p><p>First, there's the obvious moral issue.  The plan is to pay for the health care of 30M people who are either paying their own way or are unable to afford access to some health care options.  The idea being that "health care" is a right.  It's not a right, though.  It's a product.  A product that can help you to live <em>longer</em> or more comfortably.</p><p>A product that must be produced by the hands of men.  It's certainly a nice thing to have, but in order to establish it as a <em>right</em>, men must be enslaved to the needs of others.  Their output taken for the "greater good."  Their time spent forcibly on another's well-being.</p><p>If you come into this earth without health care, you get the time that you get.  We would all like more, but if you're getting extening your life using health "products" obtained without a voluntary transaction between parties (whether philanthropy or trade), then you might as well be holding a gun to someone's head and directly taking their time for your own.</p><p>=======</p><p>Then there's the constitutional issue: namely that there's nothing in there specifically authorizing the federal government to nationalize (and make no mistake, the eventual establishment of a single payer is indistinguishable from single provider) an eighth to a sixth of the nation's activity like this.  The contortions that one has to go through to call the current bill "constitutional" are so twisted as to render the document impotent as a limiting contract between the government and the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not why Obama 's healthcare plan is a bad idea .
Whether it " works " or not is immaterial .
There are two aspects of the plan that are extremely troublesome.First , there 's the obvious moral issue .
The plan is to pay for the health care of 30M people who are either paying their own way or are unable to afford access to some health care options .
The idea being that " health care " is a right .
It 's not a right , though .
It 's a product .
A product that can help you to live longer or more comfortably.A product that must be produced by the hands of men .
It 's certainly a nice thing to have , but in order to establish it as a right , men must be enslaved to the needs of others .
Their output taken for the " greater good .
" Their time spent forcibly on another 's well-being.If you come into this earth without health care , you get the time that you get .
We would all like more , but if you 're getting extening your life using health " products " obtained without a voluntary transaction between parties ( whether philanthropy or trade ) , then you might as well be holding a gun to someone 's head and directly taking their time for your own. = = = = = = = Then there 's the constitutional issue : namely that there 's nothing in there specifically authorizing the federal government to nationalize ( and make no mistake , the eventual establishment of a single payer is indistinguishable from single provider ) an eighth to a sixth of the nation 's activity like this .
The contortions that one has to go through to call the current bill " constitutional " are so twisted as to render the document impotent as a limiting contract between the government and the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not why Obama's healthcare plan is a bad idea.
Whether it "works" or not is immaterial.
There are two aspects of the plan that are extremely troublesome.First, there's the obvious moral issue.
The plan is to pay for the health care of 30M people who are either paying their own way or are unable to afford access to some health care options.
The idea being that "health care" is a right.
It's not a right, though.
It's a product.
A product that can help you to live longer or more comfortably.A product that must be produced by the hands of men.
It's certainly a nice thing to have, but in order to establish it as a right, men must be enslaved to the needs of others.
Their output taken for the "greater good.
"  Their time spent forcibly on another's well-being.If you come into this earth without health care, you get the time that you get.
We would all like more, but if you're getting extening your life using health "products" obtained without a voluntary transaction between parties (whether philanthropy or trade), then you might as well be holding a gun to someone's head and directly taking their time for your own.=======Then there's the constitutional issue: namely that there's nothing in there specifically authorizing the federal government to nationalize (and make no mistake, the eventual establishment of a single payer is indistinguishable from single provider) an eighth to a sixth of the nation's activity like this.
The contortions that one has to go through to call the current bill "constitutional" are so twisted as to render the document impotent as a limiting contract between the government and the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553668</id>
	<title>How does the 3-strikes and you're out rule apply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If everything is on-line and you can't get on the website because the ACTA or whatever "3 strikes and you don't get internet access" rule dominates, which one will take precedence?</p><p>Will you be able to not pay taxes because you can use the "I can't get internet access" excuse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If everything is on-line and you ca n't get on the website because the ACTA or whatever " 3 strikes and you do n't get internet access " rule dominates , which one will take precedence ? Will you be able to not pay taxes because you can use the " I ca n't get internet access " excuse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everything is on-line and you can't get on the website because the ACTA or whatever "3 strikes and you don't get internet access" rule dominates, which one will take precedence?Will you be able to not pay taxes because you can use the "I can't get internet access" excuse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558178</id>
	<title>redundant workers</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269192900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are redundant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are redundant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556382</id>
	<title>You should do a story about Denmarks E-box</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1269171360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since 2001 every adult Danish citizen has a legal right to get an "e-box" (www.e-boks.dk) - an electronic 'vault' where you get mail from government,state, tax authorizes and a growing number of private companies.</p><p>The point of this is that it has legal standing - if you sign up (and you don't have to) - any mail you get from the municipality or IRS has the same legal standing as if you got it on paper - except you don't waste paper, nor do they.</p><p>You can keep all the mail you keep forever - and it doesn't cost you (except via taxes of course).</p><p>More and more companies are signing up for this as well since it saves *them* money - by not having to print out tons of letters and spending money on stamps etc. This include insurance companies, banks, unions, oil companies, etc.</p><p>So you get bills this way - digitally, and you switch over to your internet bank and pay the bill - no need murder any trees in the process.</p><p>And an ever growing number of Danes like it, because you don't need to keep piles of paper all over - you just keep it online in your ebox (or download as pdf and print it out if you must have a hardcopy)</p><p>You can, for a modest fee, buy some extra space in case you want to scan stuff and upload your own material - but you don't have to and if its enough to just receive mail it doesn't cost you.</p><p>You can set the system up to notify you via regular email or text message to your cell phone when there is new post.</p><p>What about security? All adult Danes have a right to get their "digital signature" - digital files used to 'sign' any electronic interaction which requires you to prove you are you.</p><p>So far about 35\% of the population have decided they trust the system - and the number is growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since 2001 every adult Danish citizen has a legal right to get an " e-box " ( www.e-boks.dk ) - an electronic 'vault ' where you get mail from government,state , tax authorizes and a growing number of private companies.The point of this is that it has legal standing - if you sign up ( and you do n't have to ) - any mail you get from the municipality or IRS has the same legal standing as if you got it on paper - except you do n't waste paper , nor do they.You can keep all the mail you keep forever - and it does n't cost you ( except via taxes of course ) .More and more companies are signing up for this as well since it saves * them * money - by not having to print out tons of letters and spending money on stamps etc .
This include insurance companies , banks , unions , oil companies , etc.So you get bills this way - digitally , and you switch over to your internet bank and pay the bill - no need murder any trees in the process.And an ever growing number of Danes like it , because you do n't need to keep piles of paper all over - you just keep it online in your ebox ( or download as pdf and print it out if you must have a hardcopy ) You can , for a modest fee , buy some extra space in case you want to scan stuff and upload your own material - but you do n't have to and if its enough to just receive mail it does n't cost you.You can set the system up to notify you via regular email or text message to your cell phone when there is new post.What about security ?
All adult Danes have a right to get their " digital signature " - digital files used to 'sign ' any electronic interaction which requires you to prove you are you.So far about 35 \ % of the population have decided they trust the system - and the number is growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since 2001 every adult Danish citizen has a legal right to get an "e-box" (www.e-boks.dk) - an electronic 'vault' where you get mail from government,state, tax authorizes and a growing number of private companies.The point of this is that it has legal standing - if you sign up (and you don't have to) - any mail you get from the municipality or IRS has the same legal standing as if you got it on paper - except you don't waste paper, nor do they.You can keep all the mail you keep forever - and it doesn't cost you (except via taxes of course).More and more companies are signing up for this as well since it saves *them* money - by not having to print out tons of letters and spending money on stamps etc.
This include insurance companies, banks, unions, oil companies, etc.So you get bills this way - digitally, and you switch over to your internet bank and pay the bill - no need murder any trees in the process.And an ever growing number of Danes like it, because you don't need to keep piles of paper all over - you just keep it online in your ebox (or download as pdf and print it out if you must have a hardcopy)You can, for a modest fee, buy some extra space in case you want to scan stuff and upload your own material - but you don't have to and if its enough to just receive mail it doesn't cost you.You can set the system up to notify you via regular email or text message to your cell phone when there is new post.What about security?
All adult Danes have a right to get their "digital signature" - digital files used to 'sign' any electronic interaction which requires you to prove you are you.So far about 35\% of the population have decided they trust the system - and the number is growing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554420</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, what exactly are you talking about? Ayn Rand "disciples" are not exactly the first people to come to mind when it comes to concerns about privacy which is what GP was talking about. Not that they are not concerned with privacy, just that somebody like ACLU in the USA at least would come to mind first. And if you are right that this will not cause any expansion of government power, plus the fact that unions are bitching about loss of government jobs that this will entail, if anything Ayn Rand people would probably approve. And BTW, GP did not say that new information is being collected, just that it is easier to follow a trail of bits than a trail of paper which is true enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , what exactly are you talking about ?
Ayn Rand " disciples " are not exactly the first people to come to mind when it comes to concerns about privacy which is what GP was talking about .
Not that they are not concerned with privacy , just that somebody like ACLU in the USA at least would come to mind first .
And if you are right that this will not cause any expansion of government power , plus the fact that unions are bitching about loss of government jobs that this will entail , if anything Ayn Rand people would probably approve .
And BTW , GP did not say that new information is being collected , just that it is easier to follow a trail of bits than a trail of paper which is true enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, what exactly are you talking about?
Ayn Rand "disciples" are not exactly the first people to come to mind when it comes to concerns about privacy which is what GP was talking about.
Not that they are not concerned with privacy, just that somebody like ACLU in the USA at least would come to mind first.
And if you are right that this will not cause any expansion of government power, plus the fact that unions are bitching about loss of government jobs that this will entail, if anything Ayn Rand people would probably approve.
And BTW, GP did not say that new information is being collected, just that it is easier to follow a trail of bits than a trail of paper which is true enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563966</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269196560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've started to think that privacy protection is not a worthy pursuit.  Anyone with enough motivation and resources can get around any security mechanism.  Security mechanisms are not necessarily designed to be impenetrable, but designed to make break-ins time-consuming and/or resource intensive to deter people whose motivations are below a certain threshold, and to keep those whose motivations are above the threshold busy enough for a long enough period of time to be detected.  Information systems should be designed in such a way that should private information make it out into the public, it's rendered useless and/or worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've started to think that privacy protection is not a worthy pursuit .
Anyone with enough motivation and resources can get around any security mechanism .
Security mechanisms are not necessarily designed to be impenetrable , but designed to make break-ins time-consuming and/or resource intensive to deter people whose motivations are below a certain threshold , and to keep those whose motivations are above the threshold busy enough for a long enough period of time to be detected .
Information systems should be designed in such a way that should private information make it out into the public , it 's rendered useless and/or worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've started to think that privacy protection is not a worthy pursuit.
Anyone with enough motivation and resources can get around any security mechanism.
Security mechanisms are not necessarily designed to be impenetrable, but designed to make break-ins time-consuming and/or resource intensive to deter people whose motivations are below a certain threshold, and to keep those whose motivations are above the threshold busy enough for a long enough period of time to be detected.
Information systems should be designed in such a way that should private information make it out into the public, it's rendered useless and/or worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555750</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>N Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on. All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail. Much nicer for the government to follow than before.</p></div><p>Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this just data any government would have anyway? Surely the only difference is that it is cutting out the dead trees part of the cycle?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on .
All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail .
Much nicer for the government to follow than before.Maybe I 'm missing something , but is n't this just data any government would have anyway ?
Surely the only difference is that it is cutting out the dead trees part of the cycle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also makes us nice and easy to keep an eye on.
All our activity now leaves a nice little easy to follow trail.
Much nicer for the government to follow than before.Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this just data any government would have anyway?
Surely the only difference is that it is cutting out the dead trees part of the cycle?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432</id>
	<title>Eroding specialist knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this doesn't sound so great to me.  I'm a tech savvy UK citizen and I do lots of things online.  But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate.  If you're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to (possibly) find the information you're interested in.  Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance.  I'm happy "wasting" some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide "someone who knows" without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task.  Even with a good UI and a lot of online help I doubt I could sort out problems as effectively myself online as by just asking an expert with access to the right information and the knowledge to use it well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this does n't sound so great to me .
I 'm a tech savvy UK citizen and I do lots of things online .
But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate .
If you 're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to ( possibly ) find the information you 're interested in .
Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance .
I 'm happy " wasting " some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide " someone who knows " without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task .
Even with a good UI and a lot of online help I doubt I could sort out problems as effectively myself online as by just asking an expert with access to the right information and the knowledge to use it well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this doesn't sound so great to me.
I'm a tech savvy UK citizen and I do lots of things online.
But certain aspects of our nation require specialist advice to navigate.
If you're job seeking it is probably worth having someone who can give you sensible advice on the law etc without you having to trawl through pages and pages of documentation to (possibly) find the information you're interested in.
Ditto the tax system - the guys at the local tax office will see people without an appointment and can quickly explain what needs doing in a given circumstance.
I'm happy "wasting" some of my taxes on maintaining these places even if they could be replaced by an online gateway because they provide "someone who knows" without every citizen who ever has a question having to work themselves up to being a minor domain expert before they can do a relatively simple task.
Even with a good UI and a lot of online help I doubt I could sort out problems as effectively myself online as by just asking an expert with access to the right information and the knowledge to use it well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557352</id>
	<title>Good decision to target citizens for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giving every subject a website would have been much more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giving every subject a website would have been much more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giving every subject a website would have been much more expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31573604</id>
	<title>Do it tomorrow, please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two points:</p><p>1. What on Earth makes you think that the jobsworth in your local JobCentre Plus respects your privacy?  I should imagine there's a wide assortment of people who get to look at your file already.  Reducing staff probably increases your privacy.  (And no, I don't trust the Gov with my information.  OTOH it doesn't know anything desperately exciting about me.)  The only difference here is you get to input your details yourself rather than filling in a form that someone else (mis)types up later.</p><p>2. That is the single worst argument from a union I have heard.  "Keep paying our members!  Think of the children!"  Fine, yes, fewer people are needed, but in this instance it would be tantamount to minimum wage dole to keep them on at government expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two points : 1 .
What on Earth makes you think that the jobsworth in your local JobCentre Plus respects your privacy ?
I should imagine there 's a wide assortment of people who get to look at your file already .
Reducing staff probably increases your privacy .
( And no , I do n't trust the Gov with my information .
OTOH it does n't know anything desperately exciting about me .
) The only difference here is you get to input your details yourself rather than filling in a form that someone else ( mis ) types up later.2 .
That is the single worst argument from a union I have heard .
" Keep paying our members !
Think of the children !
" Fine , yes , fewer people are needed , but in this instance it would be tantamount to minimum wage dole to keep them on at government expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two points:1.
What on Earth makes you think that the jobsworth in your local JobCentre Plus respects your privacy?
I should imagine there's a wide assortment of people who get to look at your file already.
Reducing staff probably increases your privacy.
(And no, I don't trust the Gov with my information.
OTOH it doesn't know anything desperately exciting about me.
)  The only difference here is you get to input your details yourself rather than filling in a form that someone else (mis)types up later.2.
That is the single worst argument from a union I have heard.
"Keep paying our members!
Think of the children!
"  Fine, yes, fewer people are needed, but in this instance it would be tantamount to minimum wage dole to keep them on at government expense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553518</id>
	<title>then are they going to internet connection</title>
	<author>KB3NZQ</author>
	<datestamp>1269089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i have a friend in the UK and he hardly gets on line cause it costs too much so if the government is going to move all services online than what are they going to do about the cost for the internet</htmltext>
<tokenext>i have a friend in the UK and he hardly gets on line cause it costs too much so if the government is going to move all services online than what are they going to do about the cost for the internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have a friend in the UK and he hardly gets on line cause it costs too much so if the government is going to move all services online than what are they going to do about the cost for the internet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553572</id>
	<title>We have this in Norway already..</title>
	<author>hyfe</author>
	<datestamp>1269090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a single website for this in Norway already (norge.no), it's bloody usefull. Everything you need from the government is either there, or linked to from it. They even run free phone/sms/e-mail support.</p><p>There's nothing sinister about it, it certainly hasn't magically removed the bourecrazy, but it is another of the many small reasons I'm slightly smug to be norwegian; The land where stuff for the most part just works (which still doesn't stop people from whining though).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a single website for this in Norway already ( norge.no ) , it 's bloody usefull .
Everything you need from the government is either there , or linked to from it .
They even run free phone/sms/e-mail support.There 's nothing sinister about it , it certainly has n't magically removed the bourecrazy , but it is another of the many small reasons I 'm slightly smug to be norwegian ; The land where stuff for the most part just works ( which still does n't stop people from whining though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a single website for this in Norway already (norge.no), it's bloody usefull.
Everything you need from the government is either there, or linked to from it.
They even run free phone/sms/e-mail support.There's nothing sinister about it, it certainly hasn't magically removed the bourecrazy, but it is another of the many small reasons I'm slightly smug to be norwegian; The land where stuff for the most part just works (which still doesn't stop people from whining though).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555080</id>
	<title>Broken Windows</title>
	<author>Maxwell'sSilverLART</author>
	<datestamp>1269105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader."</p></div><p>Yes, $DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs!  Won't somebody please think of the glaziers, and go smash some windows to keep them employed?</p><p>As the T-shirt says: "<a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/frustrations/374d/" title="thinkgeek.com">Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.</a> [thinkgeek.com]"  Isn't this why we invented computers in the first place?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole, ' says one union leader .
" Yes , $ DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs !
Wo n't somebody please think of the glaziers , and go smash some windows to keep them employed ? As the T-shirt says : " Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script .
[ thinkgeek.com ] " Is n't this why we invented computers in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Cutting public services is not only bad for the public who use services but also the economy as we are pushing people who provide valuable services on the dole,' says one union leader.
"Yes, $DEITY forbid they should have to get productive jobs!
Won't somebody please think of the glaziers, and go smash some windows to keep them employed?As the T-shirt says: "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
[thinkgeek.com]"  Isn't this why we invented computers in the first place?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554720</id>
	<title>Is efficiency really what you want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269101040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst thing that can ever happen is for a government to:</p><p>1. Be convenient - Convenience, in any digital system, usually comes at a price to your privacy, choices, and/or freedoms (if taken far enough).  This is roughly the same thing as accessible. If you are too lazy to walk down the street or mail off something, then how the hell did you make it thusfar in life?</p><p>A couple of examples of the fallacy that is 'convenience as a good thing': It is very inconvenient to protect yourself from invasions of privacy by setting up a firewall. It's much more convenient just to leave yourself wide open for hackers. It's inconvenient to eat properly and maintain a healthy lifestyle. It's very convenient to eat fast food every day, sit on your ass and do nothing with your life (especially if you live in a welfare state that encourages you to do so).</p><p>2. Be efficient - Efficient governments have an easy time taking away all of your freedoms and then throwing you in a work camp. Innefficient governments just haven't gotten to that point yet, and probably won't during their term of office. All governments have a tendancy to want to grow, and then to use their power to leech off of the population. Every government in history has done this eventually if allowed to reach an adiquate level of efficiency. The most efficient governments in the world are always the most nightmarish and murderous ones.</p><p>3. Be cheap - The cheaper it is to screw you, the more they're screw you. Governments that are able to do things cheaply will be able to justify to taxpayers throwing half the population in prison for jaywalking. This is also one other big issue with government. If your government can't afford to enslave you, regardless of how much they're frothing at the mouth to issue a ball and chains and orange jumpsuit to every citizen at birth, they just won't be able to do it. A government that is almost broke above their basic function (and also lacks the ability to endlessly borrow money-AHEM) is quite a protection of your freedoms.</p><p>Government should be extremely innefficient, cost preventative, and highly inconvenient... that is, if you want to live in a free society.</p><p>1. Inconvenient - People can't be bothered to sign up for that surveillence scheme or social program. It's much more convenient for people to... take care of themselves and make their own way, creating a situation where the only way to get your population to play ball is to try to literally force them (which also doesn't tend to work, at least after a short period of time)</p><p>2. Innefficient - Even if we wanted to go all Nazi Germany in this place, it would take years and infastructure that we don't have to pull it off. By that time, we'll be thrown out of office so the next pack of criminals can try to run the place like a prison, unsuccessfully. It's like they always used to say "well they can't put us all in jail", or "they can't track and watch everyone". You really want a government that is efficient enough to, YES put everyone in jail, and YES has the ability to track and watch every man woman and child? There is a major protection lost.</p><p>3. Expensive - We could never justify enslaving our population to the business class. It's much too much spending, which we'd have to practically crash the economy to accomplish (unless you go the Mussolini route, but that's just a difference in organization of the same system). With any society, the cost of something will dictate it's feasibility. If it's very cheap to absolutely enslave the entire population, Gullag here we come!</p><p>I dare you to find a single exception to this in all of history. Has there been ANY efficient, cheap, or convenient government that hasn't been totally evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst thing that can ever happen is for a government to : 1 .
Be convenient - Convenience , in any digital system , usually comes at a price to your privacy , choices , and/or freedoms ( if taken far enough ) .
This is roughly the same thing as accessible .
If you are too lazy to walk down the street or mail off something , then how the hell did you make it thusfar in life ? A couple of examples of the fallacy that is 'convenience as a good thing ' : It is very inconvenient to protect yourself from invasions of privacy by setting up a firewall .
It 's much more convenient just to leave yourself wide open for hackers .
It 's inconvenient to eat properly and maintain a healthy lifestyle .
It 's very convenient to eat fast food every day , sit on your ass and do nothing with your life ( especially if you live in a welfare state that encourages you to do so ) .2 .
Be efficient - Efficient governments have an easy time taking away all of your freedoms and then throwing you in a work camp .
Innefficient governments just have n't gotten to that point yet , and probably wo n't during their term of office .
All governments have a tendancy to want to grow , and then to use their power to leech off of the population .
Every government in history has done this eventually if allowed to reach an adiquate level of efficiency .
The most efficient governments in the world are always the most nightmarish and murderous ones.3 .
Be cheap - The cheaper it is to screw you , the more they 're screw you .
Governments that are able to do things cheaply will be able to justify to taxpayers throwing half the population in prison for jaywalking .
This is also one other big issue with government .
If your government ca n't afford to enslave you , regardless of how much they 're frothing at the mouth to issue a ball and chains and orange jumpsuit to every citizen at birth , they just wo n't be able to do it .
A government that is almost broke above their basic function ( and also lacks the ability to endlessly borrow money-AHEM ) is quite a protection of your freedoms.Government should be extremely innefficient , cost preventative , and highly inconvenient... that is , if you want to live in a free society.1 .
Inconvenient - People ca n't be bothered to sign up for that surveillence scheme or social program .
It 's much more convenient for people to... take care of themselves and make their own way , creating a situation where the only way to get your population to play ball is to try to literally force them ( which also does n't tend to work , at least after a short period of time ) 2 .
Innefficient - Even if we wanted to go all Nazi Germany in this place , it would take years and infastructure that we do n't have to pull it off .
By that time , we 'll be thrown out of office so the next pack of criminals can try to run the place like a prison , unsuccessfully .
It 's like they always used to say " well they ca n't put us all in jail " , or " they ca n't track and watch everyone " .
You really want a government that is efficient enough to , YES put everyone in jail , and YES has the ability to track and watch every man woman and child ?
There is a major protection lost.3 .
Expensive - We could never justify enslaving our population to the business class .
It 's much too much spending , which we 'd have to practically crash the economy to accomplish ( unless you go the Mussolini route , but that 's just a difference in organization of the same system ) .
With any society , the cost of something will dictate it 's feasibility .
If it 's very cheap to absolutely enslave the entire population , Gullag here we come ! I dare you to find a single exception to this in all of history .
Has there been ANY efficient , cheap , or convenient government that has n't been totally evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst thing that can ever happen is for a government to:1.
Be convenient - Convenience, in any digital system, usually comes at a price to your privacy, choices, and/or freedoms (if taken far enough).
This is roughly the same thing as accessible.
If you are too lazy to walk down the street or mail off something, then how the hell did you make it thusfar in life?A couple of examples of the fallacy that is 'convenience as a good thing': It is very inconvenient to protect yourself from invasions of privacy by setting up a firewall.
It's much more convenient just to leave yourself wide open for hackers.
It's inconvenient to eat properly and maintain a healthy lifestyle.
It's very convenient to eat fast food every day, sit on your ass and do nothing with your life (especially if you live in a welfare state that encourages you to do so).2.
Be efficient - Efficient governments have an easy time taking away all of your freedoms and then throwing you in a work camp.
Innefficient governments just haven't gotten to that point yet, and probably won't during their term of office.
All governments have a tendancy to want to grow, and then to use their power to leech off of the population.
Every government in history has done this eventually if allowed to reach an adiquate level of efficiency.
The most efficient governments in the world are always the most nightmarish and murderous ones.3.
Be cheap - The cheaper it is to screw you, the more they're screw you.
Governments that are able to do things cheaply will be able to justify to taxpayers throwing half the population in prison for jaywalking.
This is also one other big issue with government.
If your government can't afford to enslave you, regardless of how much they're frothing at the mouth to issue a ball and chains and orange jumpsuit to every citizen at birth, they just won't be able to do it.
A government that is almost broke above their basic function (and also lacks the ability to endlessly borrow money-AHEM) is quite a protection of your freedoms.Government should be extremely innefficient, cost preventative, and highly inconvenient... that is, if you want to live in a free society.1.
Inconvenient - People can't be bothered to sign up for that surveillence scheme or social program.
It's much more convenient for people to... take care of themselves and make their own way, creating a situation where the only way to get your population to play ball is to try to literally force them (which also doesn't tend to work, at least after a short period of time)2.
Innefficient - Even if we wanted to go all Nazi Germany in this place, it would take years and infastructure that we don't have to pull it off.
By that time, we'll be thrown out of office so the next pack of criminals can try to run the place like a prison, unsuccessfully.
It's like they always used to say "well they can't put us all in jail", or "they can't track and watch everyone".
You really want a government that is efficient enough to, YES put everyone in jail, and YES has the ability to track and watch every man woman and child?
There is a major protection lost.3.
Expensive - We could never justify enslaving our population to the business class.
It's much too much spending, which we'd have to practically crash the economy to accomplish (unless you go the Mussolini route, but that's just a difference in organization of the same system).
With any society, the cost of something will dictate it's feasibility.
If it's very cheap to absolutely enslave the entire population, Gullag here we come!I dare you to find a single exception to this in all of history.
Has there been ANY efficient, cheap, or convenient government that hasn't been totally evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553728</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with the you in that the services available from the government to the people are in need of a heavy work over, this will fall flat on its ass. Its over ambitious, way to complex and it is an IT project, which as has already been stated in this news story comments is the UK's biggest hell. This sounds more like pandering with the elections coming up. Not to mention the fact that if every person in the country really did have to access this service online, I would question the UK's internet infrastructure to handle it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the you in that the services available from the government to the people are in need of a heavy work over , this will fall flat on its ass .
Its over ambitious , way to complex and it is an IT project , which as has already been stated in this news story comments is the UK 's biggest hell .
This sounds more like pandering with the elections coming up .
Not to mention the fact that if every person in the country really did have to access this service online , I would question the UK 's internet infrastructure to handle it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the you in that the services available from the government to the people are in need of a heavy work over, this will fall flat on its ass.
Its over ambitious, way to complex and it is an IT project, which as has already been stated in this news story comments is the UK's biggest hell.
This sounds more like pandering with the elections coming up.
Not to mention the fact that if every person in the country really did have to access this service online, I would question the UK's internet infrastructure to handle it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556152</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only hope Robbin Hood doesn't learn of our plans.</p><p>Signed,</p><p>The Sheriff of Nottingham</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only hope Robbin Hood does n't learn of our plans.Signed,The Sheriff of Nottingham</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only hope Robbin Hood doesn't learn of our plans.Signed,The Sheriff of Nottingham</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553488</id>
	<title>Denmark Already There</title>
	<author>Jezral</author>
	<datestamp>1269089460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denmark already has a similar thing. We can perform most actions dealing with the government online, and we even get a gratis certificate for digital signing and encryption of emails. I haven't had to go to a government or city office in years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denmark already has a similar thing .
We can perform most actions dealing with the government online , and we even get a gratis certificate for digital signing and encryption of emails .
I have n't had to go to a government or city office in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denmark already has a similar thing.
We can perform most actions dealing with the government online, and we even get a gratis certificate for digital signing and encryption of emails.
I haven't had to go to a government or city office in years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554248</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference.</i></p><p>So what you're saying is this move gives nothing, but allows for new malicious features to be added.</p><p>Sounds like a reason to proceed to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features ... I 'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference.So what you 're saying is this move gives nothing , but allows for new malicious features to be added.Sounds like a reason to proceed to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, in absence of these sorts of fairly overt malicious features ... I'm not sure that a move from a paper 'n civil servants based frontend to a web based frontend actually makes all that much difference.So what you're saying is this move gives nothing, but allows for new malicious features to be added.Sounds like a reason to proceed to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553666</id>
	<title>Re:on the dole, VS on the dole</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1269091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly; people seldom see it this way, but 'useless government jobs' *are* basically just another form of welfare (just not in intent, necessarily).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ; people seldom see it this way , but 'useless government jobs ' * are * basically just another form of welfare ( just not in intent , necessarily ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly; people seldom see it this way, but 'useless government jobs' *are* basically just another form of welfare (just not in intent, necessarily).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555162</id>
	<title>Re:Surveillance.</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1269107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm...You do know that the paper was being put into a computer already and the government always had access to the information on the paper right?  From the looks of it no new information is going into the computers or into government hands it is just being centralized and access is being given to the citizens directly.</p><p>There are plenty of real threats of government overstepping its power please try not to make up false ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm...You do know that the paper was being put into a computer already and the government always had access to the information on the paper right ?
From the looks of it no new information is going into the computers or into government hands it is just being centralized and access is being given to the citizens directly.There are plenty of real threats of government overstepping its power please try not to make up false ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm...You do know that the paper was being put into a computer already and the government always had access to the information on the paper right?
From the looks of it no new information is going into the computers or into government hands it is just being centralized and access is being given to the citizens directly.There are plenty of real threats of government overstepping its power please try not to make up false ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31595400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31559354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_220244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31555676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31559354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31557214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31554428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31595400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_220244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31563966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31556152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31558132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_220244.31553728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
