<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_21_1242221</id>
	<title>Chinese Researcher Says US Power Grid Is Vulnerable, Strategist Overreacts</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269177420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with a story about Wang Jianwei, a grad student in China who recently released a paper <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21grid.html">detailing a vulnerability in the US power grid</a>. Despite the paper being rather typical for security research, its origin set off alarm bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel, who testified before Congress that the student was a threat, despite the fact that the published attack wasn't really feasible. Quoting:
<i>"'We usually say "attack" so you can see what would happen,' [Wang] said. 'My emphasis is on how you can protect this. My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected.' And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid. The difference between Mr. Wang's explanation and Mr. Wortzel&rsquo;s conclusion is of more than academic interest. It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction. 'Already people are interpreting this as demonstrating some kind of interest that China would have in disrupting the US power grid,' said Nart Villeneuve, a researcher with the SecDev Group, an Ottawa-based cybersecurity research and consulting group."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with a story about Wang Jianwei , a grad student in China who recently released a paper detailing a vulnerability in the US power grid .
Despite the paper being rather typical for security research , its origin set off alarm bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel , who testified before Congress that the student was a threat , despite the fact that the published attack was n't really feasible .
Quoting : " 'We usually say " attack " so you can see what would happen, ' [ Wang ] said .
'My emphasis is on how you can protect this .
My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected .
' And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true : Mr. Wang 's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid .
The difference between Mr. Wang 's explanation and Mr. Wortzel    s conclusion is of more than academic interest .
It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues , including large-scale attacks on computer networks , even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction .
'Already people are interpreting this as demonstrating some kind of interest that China would have in disrupting the US power grid, ' said Nart Villeneuve , a researcher with the SecDev Group , an Ottawa-based cybersecurity research and consulting group .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with a story about Wang Jianwei, a grad student in China who recently released a paper detailing a vulnerability in the US power grid.
Despite the paper being rather typical for security research, its origin set off alarm bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel, who testified before Congress that the student was a threat, despite the fact that the published attack wasn't really feasible.
Quoting:
"'We usually say "attack" so you can see what would happen,' [Wang] said.
'My emphasis is on how you can protect this.
My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected.
' And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.
The difference between Mr. Wang's explanation and Mr. Wortzel’s conclusion is of more than academic interest.
It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction.
'Already people are interpreting this as demonstrating some kind of interest that China would have in disrupting the US power grid,' said Nart Villeneuve, a researcher with the SecDev Group, an Ottawa-based cybersecurity research and consulting group.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557112</id>
	<title>He's probably just being proactive.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I know it's easy for people to think he's planning an "attack", but I think he's just trying to be proactive.</p><p>Being Chinese, he no doubt craves video games, online MMORPGs and anime to a level that a Westerner just can't understand. Just put yourself in his shoes for a moment. Could you really go 30 minutes, or maybe even an hour, without playing some Wii or playing WoW or seeing some tentacle rape? No, you probably couldn't. So you'd do everything you possibly can to ensure that you have electricity 100\% of the time, even if that meant thinking about unrealistic scenarios and writing reports about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I know it 's easy for people to think he 's planning an " attack " , but I think he 's just trying to be proactive.Being Chinese , he no doubt craves video games , online MMORPGs and anime to a level that a Westerner just ca n't understand .
Just put yourself in his shoes for a moment .
Could you really go 30 minutes , or maybe even an hour , without playing some Wii or playing WoW or seeing some tentacle rape ?
No , you probably could n't .
So you 'd do everything you possibly can to ensure that you have electricity 100 \ % of the time , even if that meant thinking about unrealistic scenarios and writing reports about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I know it's easy for people to think he's planning an "attack", but I think he's just trying to be proactive.Being Chinese, he no doubt craves video games, online MMORPGs and anime to a level that a Westerner just can't understand.
Just put yourself in his shoes for a moment.
Could you really go 30 minutes, or maybe even an hour, without playing some Wii or playing WoW or seeing some tentacle rape?
No, you probably couldn't.
So you'd do everything you possibly can to ensure that you have electricity 100\% of the time, even if that meant thinking about unrealistic scenarios and writing reports about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560500</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269168240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always want to beat my head against the wall when I encounter people who think like that.  I'm surprised I've managed to keep my senses since there are so damn many people who are just sheep.</p><p>The fear mongering is bullshit.  If someone attacks us, we kick the shit out of them, and that's the end of it.  We should not be punishing citizens because <i>foreigners</i> have attempted to hurt us.</p><p>The US is full of it these days, and I really don't understand it.  Have we all turned into such spineless wimps that we'd rather suffer constant humiliation and inconvenience than suffer that 1 in a million chance that some dumbass is stupid enough to pull the <i>exact same trick</i> someone else was caught trying?</p><p>Sorry for the tangent, but seriously, taking off our shoes at the airport didn't help us catch the underwear bomber now did it?  Some food for thought: just how willing do you think a terrorist is going to be to try to take down a plane if he knows that every passenger on the plane with him has been issued a handy-dandy Emergency Terrorist Prevention Dagger when they boarded?  I can tell you for certain that the 9/11 hijackings would not have gone the way they did were that the case, and the underwear bomber would have been incapacitated before his underwear could burn up.  Future bombers/hijackers would definitely think twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always want to beat my head against the wall when I encounter people who think like that .
I 'm surprised I 've managed to keep my senses since there are so damn many people who are just sheep.The fear mongering is bullshit .
If someone attacks us , we kick the shit out of them , and that 's the end of it .
We should not be punishing citizens because foreigners have attempted to hurt us.The US is full of it these days , and I really do n't understand it .
Have we all turned into such spineless wimps that we 'd rather suffer constant humiliation and inconvenience than suffer that 1 in a million chance that some dumbass is stupid enough to pull the exact same trick someone else was caught trying ? Sorry for the tangent , but seriously , taking off our shoes at the airport did n't help us catch the underwear bomber now did it ?
Some food for thought : just how willing do you think a terrorist is going to be to try to take down a plane if he knows that every passenger on the plane with him has been issued a handy-dandy Emergency Terrorist Prevention Dagger when they boarded ?
I can tell you for certain that the 9/11 hijackings would not have gone the way they did were that the case , and the underwear bomber would have been incapacitated before his underwear could burn up .
Future bombers/hijackers would definitely think twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always want to beat my head against the wall when I encounter people who think like that.
I'm surprised I've managed to keep my senses since there are so damn many people who are just sheep.The fear mongering is bullshit.
If someone attacks us, we kick the shit out of them, and that's the end of it.
We should not be punishing citizens because foreigners have attempted to hurt us.The US is full of it these days, and I really don't understand it.
Have we all turned into such spineless wimps that we'd rather suffer constant humiliation and inconvenience than suffer that 1 in a million chance that some dumbass is stupid enough to pull the exact same trick someone else was caught trying?Sorry for the tangent, but seriously, taking off our shoes at the airport didn't help us catch the underwear bomber now did it?
Some food for thought: just how willing do you think a terrorist is going to be to try to take down a plane if he knows that every passenger on the plane with him has been issued a handy-dandy Emergency Terrorist Prevention Dagger when they boarded?
I can tell you for certain that the 9/11 hijackings would not have gone the way they did were that the case, and the underwear bomber would have been incapacitated before his underwear could burn up.
Future bombers/hijackers would definitely think twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31562658</id>
	<title>Anthelme</title>
	<author>Anthelme</author>
	<datestamp>1269184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we now link to that American politician who asked if she even needed to know what an AK-47 was? Then proceeded to pantomime holding a shoulder mounted ICBM launcher?....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we now link to that American politician who asked if she even needed to know what an AK-47 was ?
Then proceeded to pantomime holding a shoulder mounted ICBM launcher ? ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we now link to that American politician who asked if she even needed to know what an AK-47 was?
Then proceeded to pantomime holding a shoulder mounted ICBM launcher?....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558160</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1269192780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect this is about the military definition of threats.<br>(Warning: I've worn that particular hat, as a former MI assigned officer in an S2 shop for a cavalry regiment. I've never been a politician, so what you're getting here is definitely only one side of the argument).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The way Military Intelligence is supposed to work, reports consider capabilities, but they deliberately don't consider intentions. MI is never in command and NEVER makes command decisions, but reports to commanders, or at higher levels, to civilian overseers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For example, an high ranking Army Intelligence officer might be supposed to give the US Congress a good answer to whether country X has missiles with enough range to reach the US. He or she can't give a good answer, and so shouldn't comment, on whether country x has intentions to use them on the US or on someone else (at least unless there's a real obvious 'smoking gun', like the officer has found a copy of the orders where all the missiles are suddenly being retargeted at country Y and the job has to be completed by 1300 hours when "Operation Obliterate Country Y" begins).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's up to civilian oversight to determine whether a threat (potential) becomes an enemy (actual). The military is not supposed to decide when to go to war, that's the job of civilians. If you want congress or the president to be the ones to decide whether the US needs to go to war or not, you can't have the pentagon declaring in advance who is an enemy and who isn't.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Right now, Great Britain has pretty serious threat potential (They have weapons which could damage the US, and ways to transport them to us). They don't suddenly count as an enemy just because of that. Pakistan has less threat potential (not as many weapons or delivery systems). Imagine a coup puts militant Taliban related forces in charge of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. They might suddenly be classed as an enemy nation, but what happened to the threat assessment? Nothing! They are exactly the same threat, from a Military Intelligence assessment, as before. Same number of bombs and missiles and troops, same threat.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Put that way, a person who can figure out a good way to attack the US is a threat, or a small part of a threat. That he's shared his info with us should make the civilians who are supposed to decide what actions to take figure he's not an enemy, and that any potential threat here is not likely to become an actualized attack. Common sense tells normally rational people that if this person was part of a secret plan that would eventually use his information against us, he wouldn't have mentioned it all publicly. The people he was connected to in China would be unknown to us, not publicly accessible, and so on. But that means any intelligence system which discovered threat potential here probably reported it right, it's just civilian overseers acted like paranoid fools.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For another analogy. Let's say you have two people nearby who can both lift over 300 pounds. They both represent similar threats to you, in the most technical sense. One is there to help you move your furniture, the other is an escaped convict looking for a hiding place. Only one of them is at all likely to attempt to harm you, and it's quite possible he has no intentions against you either. You might classify the mover as an ally, and then it's a judgement call if the convict is an enemy at that point, but both technically have near identical threat potential from what you know. This whole matter sounds like a case where someone is conflating the facts and the conjectures, to try and make people be equally worried about 'moving men' and 'escaped convicts', and then assume the worst possible scenarios are inevitable and not just possible for the convicts as well.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this is about the military definition of threats .
( Warning : I 've worn that particular hat , as a former MI assigned officer in an S2 shop for a cavalry regiment .
I 've never been a politician , so what you 're getting here is definitely only one side of the argument ) .
        The way Military Intelligence is supposed to work , reports consider capabilities , but they deliberately do n't consider intentions .
MI is never in command and NEVER makes command decisions , but reports to commanders , or at higher levels , to civilian overseers .
        For example , an high ranking Army Intelligence officer might be supposed to give the US Congress a good answer to whether country X has missiles with enough range to reach the US .
He or she ca n't give a good answer , and so should n't comment , on whether country x has intentions to use them on the US or on someone else ( at least unless there 's a real obvious 'smoking gun ' , like the officer has found a copy of the orders where all the missiles are suddenly being retargeted at country Y and the job has to be completed by 1300 hours when " Operation Obliterate Country Y " begins ) .
          It 's up to civilian oversight to determine whether a threat ( potential ) becomes an enemy ( actual ) .
The military is not supposed to decide when to go to war , that 's the job of civilians .
If you want congress or the president to be the ones to decide whether the US needs to go to war or not , you ca n't have the pentagon declaring in advance who is an enemy and who is n't .
        Right now , Great Britain has pretty serious threat potential ( They have weapons which could damage the US , and ways to transport them to us ) .
They do n't suddenly count as an enemy just because of that .
Pakistan has less threat potential ( not as many weapons or delivery systems ) .
Imagine a coup puts militant Taliban related forces in charge of Pakistan 's nuclear weapons .
They might suddenly be classed as an enemy nation , but what happened to the threat assessment ?
Nothing ! They are exactly the same threat , from a Military Intelligence assessment , as before .
Same number of bombs and missiles and troops , same threat .
      Put that way , a person who can figure out a good way to attack the US is a threat , or a small part of a threat .
That he 's shared his info with us should make the civilians who are supposed to decide what actions to take figure he 's not an enemy , and that any potential threat here is not likely to become an actualized attack .
Common sense tells normally rational people that if this person was part of a secret plan that would eventually use his information against us , he would n't have mentioned it all publicly .
The people he was connected to in China would be unknown to us , not publicly accessible , and so on .
But that means any intelligence system which discovered threat potential here probably reported it right , it 's just civilian overseers acted like paranoid fools .
        For another analogy .
Let 's say you have two people nearby who can both lift over 300 pounds .
They both represent similar threats to you , in the most technical sense .
One is there to help you move your furniture , the other is an escaped convict looking for a hiding place .
Only one of them is at all likely to attempt to harm you , and it 's quite possible he has no intentions against you either .
You might classify the mover as an ally , and then it 's a judgement call if the convict is an enemy at that point , but both technically have near identical threat potential from what you know .
This whole matter sounds like a case where someone is conflating the facts and the conjectures , to try and make people be equally worried about 'moving men ' and 'escaped convicts ' , and then assume the worst possible scenarios are inevitable and not just possible for the convicts as well .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this is about the military definition of threats.
(Warning: I've worn that particular hat, as a former MI assigned officer in an S2 shop for a cavalry regiment.
I've never been a politician, so what you're getting here is definitely only one side of the argument).
        The way Military Intelligence is supposed to work, reports consider capabilities, but they deliberately don't consider intentions.
MI is never in command and NEVER makes command decisions, but reports to commanders, or at higher levels, to civilian overseers.
        For example, an high ranking Army Intelligence officer might be supposed to give the US Congress a good answer to whether country X has missiles with enough range to reach the US.
He or she can't give a good answer, and so shouldn't comment, on whether country x has intentions to use them on the US or on someone else (at least unless there's a real obvious 'smoking gun', like the officer has found a copy of the orders where all the missiles are suddenly being retargeted at country Y and the job has to be completed by 1300 hours when "Operation Obliterate Country Y" begins).
          It's up to civilian oversight to determine whether a threat (potential) becomes an enemy (actual).
The military is not supposed to decide when to go to war, that's the job of civilians.
If you want congress or the president to be the ones to decide whether the US needs to go to war or not, you can't have the pentagon declaring in advance who is an enemy and who isn't.
        Right now, Great Britain has pretty serious threat potential (They have weapons which could damage the US, and ways to transport them to us).
They don't suddenly count as an enemy just because of that.
Pakistan has less threat potential (not as many weapons or delivery systems).
Imagine a coup puts militant Taliban related forces in charge of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
They might suddenly be classed as an enemy nation, but what happened to the threat assessment?
Nothing! They are exactly the same threat, from a Military Intelligence assessment, as before.
Same number of bombs and missiles and troops, same threat.
      Put that way, a person who can figure out a good way to attack the US is a threat, or a small part of a threat.
That he's shared his info with us should make the civilians who are supposed to decide what actions to take figure he's not an enemy, and that any potential threat here is not likely to become an actualized attack.
Common sense tells normally rational people that if this person was part of a secret plan that would eventually use his information against us, he wouldn't have mentioned it all publicly.
The people he was connected to in China would be unknown to us, not publicly accessible, and so on.
But that means any intelligence system which discovered threat potential here probably reported it right, it's just civilian overseers acted like paranoid fools.
        For another analogy.
Let's say you have two people nearby who can both lift over 300 pounds.
They both represent similar threats to you, in the most technical sense.
One is there to help you move your furniture, the other is an escaped convict looking for a hiding place.
Only one of them is at all likely to attempt to harm you, and it's quite possible he has no intentions against you either.
You might classify the mover as an ally, and then it's a judgement call if the convict is an enemy at that point, but both technically have near identical threat potential from what you know.
This whole matter sounds like a case where someone is conflating the facts and the conjectures, to try and make people be equally worried about 'moving men' and 'escaped convicts', and then assume the worst possible scenarios are inevitable and not just possible for the convicts as well.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557224</id>
	<title>D&#233;tente</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1269183180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll just have one of <i>our</i> grad students publish a paper online on the vulnerability of <i>your</i> power grid and see how <i>you</i> like it! So there! <i>Nyaah!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll just have one of our grad students publish a paper online on the vulnerability of your power grid and see how you like it !
So there !
Nyaah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll just have one of our grad students publish a paper online on the vulnerability of your power grid and see how you like it!
So there!
Nyaah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561202</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get some reliable missle shielding in place and then just nuke every major city in China - seriously.  Enough of this bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get some reliable missle shielding in place and then just nuke every major city in China - seriously .
Enough of this bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get some reliable missle shielding in place and then just nuke every major city in China - seriously.
Enough of this bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563950</id>
	<title>Re:Since no one has said it,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269196320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wang: Americans, I have a message for you! Your power infrastructure is vulnerable!<br><b>Quiet Legislation</b>. Wang drowns in an over supply of cheap chinese crap and his family starves because he can't sell the crap to to the US anymore.<br>U.S. Congress: Die, Bitches!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wang : Americans , I have a message for you !
Your power infrastructure is vulnerable ! Quiet Legislation .
Wang drowns in an over supply of cheap chinese crap and his family starves because he ca n't sell the crap to to the US anymore.U.S .
Congress : Die , Bitches !
...fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wang: Americans, I have a message for you!
Your power infrastructure is vulnerable!Quiet Legislation.
Wang drowns in an over supply of cheap chinese crap and his family starves because he can't sell the crap to to the US anymore.U.S.
Congress: Die, Bitches!
...fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558272</id>
	<title>Re:Larry M. Wortzel "overeacts"</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1269193860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Larry M. Wortzel "overreacts" because he needs something to justify his job, his pay, and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed.  And fixing the problem here can't be done by attacking him and others who take the approach of "Shoot the messenger" in cases like this.  It might be fairly obvious to a lot of us that we want people finding such problems and telling us about them.  The alternative is that we don't hear about a problem until someone exploits it.  But fixing it requires changing the social and organizational systems that reward people like Mr Wortzel for their attacks on bearers of bad news.</p><p>Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."  This is the case here.  Mr Wortzel is probably going to benefit from his actions.  Attacking him will do little; it'll only turn him into a sort of martyr.</p><p>The real culprits are the organizations that hire people like him;  All too often, they reward people who try to suppress information about problems.  We should be publicly pointing out the stupidity of this sort of attack, and the stupidity of discouraging release of such information.  And we need to find ways of punishing the people who reward those who attack bad-news messengers.</p><p>(But the sort of nested logic in that last sentence is difficult to get across in political and management settings, so it may be hopeless.  It's far too complex for most people. We need a bumper-sticker slogan for the situation.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry M. Wortzel " overreacts " because he needs something to justify his job , his pay , and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things.Indeed .
And fixing the problem here ca n't be done by attacking him and others who take the approach of " Shoot the messenger " in cases like this .
It might be fairly obvious to a lot of us that we want people finding such problems and telling us about them .
The alternative is that we do n't hear about a problem until someone exploits it .
But fixing it requires changing the social and organizational systems that reward people like Mr Wortzel for their attacks on bearers of bad news.Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying " It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it .
" This is the case here .
Mr Wortzel is probably going to benefit from his actions .
Attacking him will do little ; it 'll only turn him into a sort of martyr.The real culprits are the organizations that hire people like him ; All too often , they reward people who try to suppress information about problems .
We should be publicly pointing out the stupidity of this sort of attack , and the stupidity of discouraging release of such information .
And we need to find ways of punishing the people who reward those who attack bad-news messengers .
( But the sort of nested logic in that last sentence is difficult to get across in political and management settings , so it may be hopeless .
It 's far too complex for most people .
We need a bumper-sticker slogan for the situation .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Larry M. Wortzel "overreacts" because he needs something to justify his job, his pay, and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things.Indeed.
And fixing the problem here can't be done by attacking him and others who take the approach of "Shoot the messenger" in cases like this.
It might be fairly obvious to a lot of us that we want people finding such problems and telling us about them.
The alternative is that we don't hear about a problem until someone exploits it.
But fixing it requires changing the social and organizational systems that reward people like Mr Wortzel for their attacks on bearers of bad news.Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
"  This is the case here.
Mr Wortzel is probably going to benefit from his actions.
Attacking him will do little; it'll only turn him into a sort of martyr.The real culprits are the organizations that hire people like him;  All too often, they reward people who try to suppress information about problems.
We should be publicly pointing out the stupidity of this sort of attack, and the stupidity of discouraging release of such information.
And we need to find ways of punishing the people who reward those who attack bad-news messengers.
(But the sort of nested logic in that last sentence is difficult to get across in political and management settings, so it may be hopeless.
It's far too complex for most people.
We need a bumper-sticker slogan for the situation.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558368</id>
	<title>Re:This is just silly, but no harm done.</title>
	<author>hhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1269194820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say "there no way for [Wortzel] to judge" the situation. Which seems untrue, unless you are saying that Wortzel is unqualified to discuss or provide analysis of this type of research. He certainly could of looked at the Journal itself and seen what else was in there. He certainly could have talked to others non-Chinese researchers BEFORE talking to Congress.</p><p>The fact that the article was in a Journal and published say in a Taliban newsletter should have been at least a starting point; not a point to jump off into the dark..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say " there no way for [ Wortzel ] to judge " the situation .
Which seems untrue , unless you are saying that Wortzel is unqualified to discuss or provide analysis of this type of research .
He certainly could of looked at the Journal itself and seen what else was in there .
He certainly could have talked to others non-Chinese researchers BEFORE talking to Congress.The fact that the article was in a Journal and published say in a Taliban newsletter should have been at least a starting point ; not a point to jump off into the dark. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say "there no way for [Wortzel] to judge" the situation.
Which seems untrue, unless you are saying that Wortzel is unqualified to discuss or provide analysis of this type of research.
He certainly could of looked at the Journal itself and seen what else was in there.
He certainly could have talked to others non-Chinese researchers BEFORE talking to Congress.The fact that the article was in a Journal and published say in a Taliban newsletter should have been at least a starting point; not a point to jump off into the dark..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557182</id>
	<title>Public security research is not a threat</title>
	<author>Andrioid</author>
	<datestamp>1269182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Public security research is not a threat. Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are.

The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public security research is not a threat .
Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are .
The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public security research is not a threat.
Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are.
The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557996</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I always thought being brave meant <em>not</em> to be scared<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I always thought being brave meant not to be scared .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I always thought being brave meant not to be scared ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557480</id>
	<title>Since no one has said it,</title>
	<author>arielCo</author>
	<datestamp>1269185880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Wang: Americans, I have a message for you! Your power infrastructure is vulnerable!<br>
<b>LOUD SHOT. Wang grabs his chest and drops dead.</b> <br>
U.S. Military: And this is how we deal with threats.<br>
</tt>
<br>
(you can mod me down now)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wang : Americans , I have a message for you !
Your power infrastructure is vulnerable !
LOUD SHOT .
Wang grabs his chest and drops dead .
U.S. Military : And this is how we deal with threats .
( you can mod me down now )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wang: Americans, I have a message for you!
Your power infrastructure is vulnerable!
LOUD SHOT.
Wang grabs his chest and drops dead.
U.S. Military: And this is how we deal with threats.
(you can mod me down now)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558380</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1269194940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right.  BTW, I don't doubt that China is building cyberwarfare capabilities for attacks to disable important pieces of infrastrcture.  There is too much evidence at the moment to discount that.  Also to an outsider, this sort of thing looks bad.</p><p>However, all this being said....  This sort of paper is not a threat.  If you want to use an attack, the thing you don't do is alert the target to the vulnerability beforehand so that it can be corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right .
BTW , I do n't doubt that China is building cyberwarfare capabilities for attacks to disable important pieces of infrastrcture .
There is too much evidence at the moment to discount that .
Also to an outsider , this sort of thing looks bad.However , all this being said.... This sort of paper is not a threat .
If you want to use an attack , the thing you do n't do is alert the target to the vulnerability beforehand so that it can be corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right.
BTW, I don't doubt that China is building cyberwarfare capabilities for attacks to disable important pieces of infrastrcture.
There is too much evidence at the moment to discount that.
Also to an outsider, this sort of thing looks bad.However, all this being said....  This sort of paper is not a threat.
If you want to use an attack, the thing you don't do is alert the target to the vulnerability beforehand so that it can be corrected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557204</id>
	<title>Re:Scapegoating abounds and we all suffer</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1269182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True true.  Your Hoover reference surprised me though; I really thought you'd be going with McCarthy on this one...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>True true .
Your Hoover reference surprised me though ; I really thought you 'd be going with McCarthy on this one... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True true.
Your Hoover reference surprised me though; I really thought you'd be going with McCarthy on this one... :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269184080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie.<br><br>Because the USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave!</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie.Because the USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie.Because the USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557448</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't Happen</title>
	<author>alexhs</author>
	<datestamp>1269185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbetweening" title="wikipedia.org">inbetweening</a> [wikipedia.org]  is done in China now ? (it has already been done in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons#Animation" title="wikipedia.org">South Korea</a> [wikipedia.org])</p><p>In which case, maybe are YOU a few seasons behind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , maybe inbetweening [ wikipedia.org ] is done in China now ?
( it has already been done in South Korea [ wikipedia.org ] ) In which case , maybe are YOU a few seasons behind ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, maybe inbetweening [wikipedia.org]  is done in China now ?
(it has already been done in South Korea [wikipedia.org])In which case, maybe are YOU a few seasons behind ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31562084</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1269179880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the bottom line is the electrical grid is in serious need of upgrading, it's fragile, there is no redundancy and there is no real security either physical or in the control systems. It's fallen down twice in the North East US and fallen hard, once in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_Blackout\_of\_1965" title="wikipedia.org">1965</a> [wikipedia.org] and then again even bigger in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_Blackout\_of\_2003" title="wikipedia.org">2003</a> [wikipedia.org]. Obama campaigned on some renewable energy planks, which will be blue smoke and mirrors without infra-structure upgrades to the grid. Right now the way things are what a software attack doesn't do, a physical attack will and what that doesn't do the next big <a href="http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/nicky/cme-chase.html" title="nasa.gov">CME</a> [nasa.gov] with a negative z component will.<br>Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the bottom line is the electrical grid is in serious need of upgrading , it 's fragile , there is no redundancy and there is no real security either physical or in the control systems .
It 's fallen down twice in the North East US and fallen hard , once in 1965 [ wikipedia.org ] and then again even bigger in 2003 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Obama campaigned on some renewable energy planks , which will be blue smoke and mirrors without infra-structure upgrades to the grid .
Right now the way things are what a software attack does n't do , a physical attack will and what that does n't do the next big CME [ nasa.gov ] with a negative z component will.Shooting the messenger does n't change the message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the bottom line is the electrical grid is in serious need of upgrading, it's fragile, there is no redundancy and there is no real security either physical or in the control systems.
It's fallen down twice in the North East US and fallen hard, once in 1965 [wikipedia.org] and then again even bigger in 2003 [wikipedia.org].
Obama campaigned on some renewable energy planks, which will be blue smoke and mirrors without infra-structure upgrades to the grid.
Right now the way things are what a software attack doesn't do, a physical attack will and what that doesn't do the next big CME [nasa.gov] with a negative z component will.Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557260</id>
	<title>Re:Still doesn't make it a non-threat.</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that from that movie where Sting proved he couldn't act? No, not <i>that</i> one, the other one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yeah, that's it, Dune.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that from that movie where Sting proved he could n't act ?
No , not that one , the other one ... yeah , that 's it , Dune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that from that movie where Sting proved he couldn't act?
No, not that one, the other one ... yeah, that's it, Dune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557654</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269187440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's afraid of the ten-foot tall members of al Qaeda who can shoot lightning bolts out their fingers and fly. Duh.</p><p>And they obviously exist - why else would every Republican member of Congress shit their pants when the subject comes up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's afraid of the ten-foot tall members of al Qaeda who can shoot lightning bolts out their fingers and fly .
Duh.And they obviously exist - why else would every Republican member of Congress shit their pants when the subject comes up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's afraid of the ten-foot tall members of al Qaeda who can shoot lightning bolts out their fingers and fly.
Duh.And they obviously exist - why else would every Republican member of Congress shit their pants when the subject comes up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557096</id>
	<title>This is just silly, but no harm done.</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1269181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the profile of the Chinese being ultra-patriotic and always acting in the best interest of China, together with the nagging (alleged) cyber-sleuthing on US networks makes this behavior understandable, but he's overreacting. However, the situation Wortzel described could have been real, and there's no way for him to judge. The alert seems to have been canceled already, so problem solved. No black helicopters with identity-less elite commandos arriving in the night to slit the throat of an innocent geek, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the profile of the Chinese being ultra-patriotic and always acting in the best interest of China , together with the nagging ( alleged ) cyber-sleuthing on US networks makes this behavior understandable , but he 's overreacting .
However , the situation Wortzel described could have been real , and there 's no way for him to judge .
The alert seems to have been canceled already , so problem solved .
No black helicopters with identity-less elite commandos arriving in the night to slit the throat of an innocent geek , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the profile of the Chinese being ultra-patriotic and always acting in the best interest of China, together with the nagging (alleged) cyber-sleuthing on US networks makes this behavior understandable, but he's overreacting.
However, the situation Wortzel described could have been real, and there's no way for him to judge.
The alert seems to have been canceled already, so problem solved.
No black helicopters with identity-less elite commandos arriving in the night to slit the throat of an innocent geek, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557578</id>
	<title>Re:It would be better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269186840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure invite for Chinese nationals into the US where they can access sensitive information and readily transmit it back the the homeland. Not like the Chinese have not already done such things to the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure invite for Chinese nationals into the US where they can access sensitive information and readily transmit it back the the homeland .
Not like the Chinese have not already done such things to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure invite for Chinese nationals into the US where they can access sensitive information and readily transmit it back the the homeland.
Not like the Chinese have not already done such things to the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557064</id>
	<title>Couldn't Happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest mistake he made in his paper was the assumption that Homer still works at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Clearly China is several seasons behind in their '<i>research</i>'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest mistake he made in his paper was the assumption that Homer still works at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant .
Clearly China is several seasons behind in their 'research' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest mistake he made in his paper was the assumption that Homer still works at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.
Clearly China is several seasons behind in their 'research'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really can't understand this way of thinking. It will probably get me modded down but I ask of you to think about this.

What are you afraid of? every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie.

Why do you feel threatened by a person who is not born in the USA who tells you there is a flaw in your system and goes so far to even tell you all about that flaw.... I don't get it. I just don't get in, I'm sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really ca n't understand this way of thinking .
It will probably get me modded down but I ask of you to think about this .
What are you afraid of ?
every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie .
Why do you feel threatened by a person who is not born in the USA who tells you there is a flaw in your system and goes so far to even tell you all about that flaw.... I do n't get it .
I just do n't get in , I 'm sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really can't understand this way of thinking.
It will probably get me modded down but I ask of you to think about this.
What are you afraid of?
every time I turn on the tv I see news from the US and every time it is about being scared or about why you should be scared and every time it turns out to be a lie.
Why do you feel threatened by a person who is not born in the USA who tells you there is a flaw in your system and goes so far to even tell you all about that flaw.... I don't get it.
I just don't get in, I'm sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557086</id>
	<title>Why would they turn the lights off...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to property they're going to legitimately own, thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to property they 're going to legitimately own , thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to property they're going to legitimately own, thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558834</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1269199140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is confirmation bias for the mass and politicians, but FUD marketing for the security/defense industry. Indeed, without FUD, most defense contractors around the world would have been out of works decades ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is confirmation bias for the mass and politicians , but FUD marketing for the security/defense industry .
Indeed , without FUD , most defense contractors around the world would have been out of works decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is confirmation bias for the mass and politicians, but FUD marketing for the security/defense industry.
Indeed, without FUD, most defense contractors around the world would have been out of works decades ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557376</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Kumiorava</author>
	<datestamp>1269184920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue of vulnerable power grid is a legitimate threat, but the individual creating a study about it is not. You get it backwards when you say the individual is a threat and paper (or the vulnerability) might be harmless. A grad student won't have capability or interest in taking down US power grid, instances with capability to harm US power grid have also means to create similar study on their own. I'm sure even US military has created similar study and have planned on supplying electricity to critical locations without the electric grid.</p><p>There are many valid reasons why US electric grid was chosen to be target of the study. Creating similar risk analysis on Chinese electric grid could be a serious offense in China, or information about US electric grid was more available than any other major electric grid in the world. Most likely this student has interest in working at the electric grids and wants to help to build one that is more secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue of vulnerable power grid is a legitimate threat , but the individual creating a study about it is not .
You get it backwards when you say the individual is a threat and paper ( or the vulnerability ) might be harmless .
A grad student wo n't have capability or interest in taking down US power grid , instances with capability to harm US power grid have also means to create similar study on their own .
I 'm sure even US military has created similar study and have planned on supplying electricity to critical locations without the electric grid.There are many valid reasons why US electric grid was chosen to be target of the study .
Creating similar risk analysis on Chinese electric grid could be a serious offense in China , or information about US electric grid was more available than any other major electric grid in the world .
Most likely this student has interest in working at the electric grids and wants to help to build one that is more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue of vulnerable power grid is a legitimate threat, but the individual creating a study about it is not.
You get it backwards when you say the individual is a threat and paper (or the vulnerability) might be harmless.
A grad student won't have capability or interest in taking down US power grid, instances with capability to harm US power grid have also means to create similar study on their own.
I'm sure even US military has created similar study and have planned on supplying electricity to critical locations without the electric grid.There are many valid reasons why US electric grid was chosen to be target of the study.
Creating similar risk analysis on Chinese electric grid could be a serious offense in China, or information about US electric grid was more available than any other major electric grid in the world.
Most likely this student has interest in working at the electric grids and wants to help to build one that is more secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557194</id>
	<title>21st cent security is a lot like 19th cent medicin</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1269182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both are filled with more quackery than actual sound practices. There is very little difference between most "security experts" today and the snake oil peddlers who told the public that their 150 proof secret tonic could cure everything from whooping cough to "consumption."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are filled with more quackery than actual sound practices .
There is very little difference between most " security experts " today and the snake oil peddlers who told the public that their 150 proof secret tonic could cure everything from whooping cough to " consumption .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are filled with more quackery than actual sound practices.
There is very little difference between most "security experts" today and the snake oil peddlers who told the public that their 150 proof secret tonic could cure everything from whooping cough to "consumption.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256</id>
	<title>This has always been the problem with the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. is reactive and not proactive. The U.S. always has to wait until after the fact to admit that there was a threat. This is nothing new to me. Just read <a href="http://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf" title="c4i.org">Unrestricted Warfare</a> [c4i.org]. The Chinese have been stating this for years now. Yes everything will be fine until the lights go out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. is reactive and not proactive .
The U.S. always has to wait until after the fact to admit that there was a threat .
This is nothing new to me .
Just read Unrestricted Warfare [ c4i.org ] .
The Chinese have been stating this for years now .
Yes everything will be fine until the lights go out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. is reactive and not proactive.
The U.S. always has to wait until after the fact to admit that there was a threat.
This is nothing new to me.
Just read Unrestricted Warfare [c4i.org].
The Chinese have been stating this for years now.
Yes everything will be fine until the lights go out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557202</id>
	<title>Re:Scapegoating abounds and we all suffer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.</p></div><p>Conversely, we all suffer when truly guilty persons are portrayed as innocent martyrs so some bleeding heart can get his time in front of a microphone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.Conversely , we all suffer when truly guilty persons are portrayed as innocent martyrs so some bleeding heart can get his time in front of a microphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.Conversely, we all suffer when truly guilty persons are portrayed as innocent martyrs so some bleeding heart can get his time in front of a microphone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557572</id>
	<title>Let me guess...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1269186780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are more of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's\_formulation" title="wikipedia.org">Otto von Bismarck than Ben Franklin</a> [wikipedia.org] kind of guy, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are more of a Otto von Bismarck than Ben Franklin [ wikipedia.org ] kind of guy , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are more of a Otto von Bismarck than Ben Franklin [wikipedia.org] kind of guy, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558292</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269194040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax, and the brighter people were sure of it.  Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.</p><p>And, there is no true "neutral ground" in the global warming debate.  "You're either with us, or you're fruit loops", is what we hear from the "consensus".</p><p>I recently changed my sig on another forum - I might use the same one here:<br>Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.<br>- Michael Crichton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax , and the brighter people were sure of it .
Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.And , there is no true " neutral ground " in the global warming debate .
" You 're either with us , or you 're fruit loops " , is what we hear from the " consensus " .I recently changed my sig on another forum - I might use the same one here : Historically , the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels ; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.- Michael Crichton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax, and the brighter people were sure of it.
Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.And, there is no true "neutral ground" in the global warming debate.
"You're either with us, or you're fruit loops", is what we hear from the "consensus".I recently changed my sig on another forum - I might use the same one here:Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.- Michael Crichton</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557916</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But also the land of the sheep and the home of the hens. Fortunately, you can chose what do you want to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But also the land of the sheep and the home of the hens .
Fortunately , you can chose what do you want to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But also the land of the sheep and the home of the hens.
Fortunately, you can chose what do you want to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557360</id>
	<title>Re:This has always been the problem with the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>STFU stooge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>STFU stooge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>STFU stooge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563098</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1269187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is confirmation bias. The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree, in many Asian work ethics, finding a new, more efficient way of doing things is considered an very desirable trait. Pointing out the Chinese power system could use some improvement would have earned this researcher a biscuit from his superiors, instead he runs headlong into the US mentality of distrust and xenophobia*.<br> <br>

* I know most USians are not racist/xenophobic, most of you are good people and don't live up (down) to the American stereotype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is confirmation bias .
The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers .
I agree , in many Asian work ethics , finding a new , more efficient way of doing things is considered an very desirable trait .
Pointing out the Chinese power system could use some improvement would have earned this researcher a biscuit from his superiors , instead he runs headlong into the US mentality of distrust and xenophobia * .
* I know most USians are not racist/xenophobic , most of you are good people and do n't live up ( down ) to the American stereotype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is confirmation bias.
The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers.
I agree, in many Asian work ethics, finding a new, more efficient way of doing things is considered an very desirable trait.
Pointing out the Chinese power system could use some improvement would have earned this researcher a biscuit from his superiors, instead he runs headlong into the US mentality of distrust and xenophobia*.
* I know most USians are not racist/xenophobic, most of you are good people and don't live up (down) to the American stereotype.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557254</id>
	<title>moD down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">my calling. Now I dim.  Due to the Fre3BSD at about 80 Leaving the play told reporters, profits without a full-time GNAA The goodwill Watershed essay, the above is far</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>my calling .
Now I dim .
Due to the Fre3BSD at about 80 Leaving the play told reporters , profits without a full-time GNAA The goodwill Watershed essay , the above is far [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my calling.
Now I dim.
Due to the Fre3BSD at about 80 Leaving the play told reporters, profits without a full-time GNAA The goodwill Watershed essay, the above is far [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558012</id>
	<title>Re:Public security research is not a threat</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1269191340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Public security research is not a threat. Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are. The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder.</p></div><p>Public security research <i>is</i> a threat. But it's not the researcher's fault; It's the people who wait for research like this to be published and then use it (open source intelligence gathering) to develop attacks. It's easier to target and blame the researcher for publication than to attempt to find the malignant factors, who are increasingly operating independently and lack connections to an organization. Which means, in short, they're operating under the radar. Conventional intelligence-gathering efforts depend on the fact that as the number of criminals cooperating increases, the chance of mistakes being made which expose them increase exponentially. Also, the number of communication channels between people increase geometrically, resulting in a larger signals intelligence footprint.</p><p>So basically, it's cheaper, even if it's not ethical. And ethics, as you know, are decided by those in power. So there will always be a rationalization to discredit and imprison people who come forward with security problems, simply because it's cheaper to do so than fix the underlying problems, which they are already well aware of and would prefer you not tell them that the emperor has no clothes.</p><p>Unfortunately, the logical conclusion for this kind of reactionary thinking is that eventually a backlash will build up and people will begin independently engaging in small-scale acts of sabotage in an attempt to bring attention to these problems (which has recently started to happen domestically). The government's over-reaction to these attempts by the citizens to excercise the only recourse left to them by creating harsher penalties, more survillance, and secret courts, will eventually result in larger targets being attacked and destroyed, by independent citizens or small groups.</p><p>We've been here before -- in the late 1800s, in the 1960s and 70s, and briefly again in the late 90s. It's cyclical. The problem is, each time it happens, it gets worse, and the government refuses to acknowledge this systemic failure of its domestic intelligence policies. Eventually, we're going to have another 9/11, but we won't be able to blame anyone but ourselves when angry citizens start taking out government buildings.</p><p>And the reason is we've left them with no alternative: Terrorism is, in fact, a valid way of promoting change when all other methods have failed. The strength of a democracy is the fact that we have all those other methods open to us. Close them off, like we're doing now by punishing people who have knowledge and publicly state the failings of the system and draw attention to needed repairs... And it will come to our own soil with a vengance. And we'll have nobody to blame but our ill-designed domestic policies for it.</p><p>Perhaps the intelligence community needs a better way of accepting reports of these problems and rewarding citizens for being diligent, instead of imprisoning them and invading their privacy as potential subversives. And perhaps expanding the definition of citizen to include anyone who works to secure our future, domestically or internationally. How about the concept of <i>honorary citizen</i>?  These are the principles and actions we should be striving for -- not this goddamned police state bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public security research is not a threat .
Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are .
The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder.Public security research is a threat .
But it 's not the researcher 's fault ; It 's the people who wait for research like this to be published and then use it ( open source intelligence gathering ) to develop attacks .
It 's easier to target and blame the researcher for publication than to attempt to find the malignant factors , who are increasingly operating independently and lack connections to an organization .
Which means , in short , they 're operating under the radar .
Conventional intelligence-gathering efforts depend on the fact that as the number of criminals cooperating increases , the chance of mistakes being made which expose them increase exponentially .
Also , the number of communication channels between people increase geometrically , resulting in a larger signals intelligence footprint.So basically , it 's cheaper , even if it 's not ethical .
And ethics , as you know , are decided by those in power .
So there will always be a rationalization to discredit and imprison people who come forward with security problems , simply because it 's cheaper to do so than fix the underlying problems , which they are already well aware of and would prefer you not tell them that the emperor has no clothes.Unfortunately , the logical conclusion for this kind of reactionary thinking is that eventually a backlash will build up and people will begin independently engaging in small-scale acts of sabotage in an attempt to bring attention to these problems ( which has recently started to happen domestically ) .
The government 's over-reaction to these attempts by the citizens to excercise the only recourse left to them by creating harsher penalties , more survillance , and secret courts , will eventually result in larger targets being attacked and destroyed , by independent citizens or small groups.We 've been here before -- in the late 1800s , in the 1960s and 70s , and briefly again in the late 90s .
It 's cyclical .
The problem is , each time it happens , it gets worse , and the government refuses to acknowledge this systemic failure of its domestic intelligence policies .
Eventually , we 're going to have another 9/11 , but we wo n't be able to blame anyone but ourselves when angry citizens start taking out government buildings.And the reason is we 've left them with no alternative : Terrorism is , in fact , a valid way of promoting change when all other methods have failed .
The strength of a democracy is the fact that we have all those other methods open to us .
Close them off , like we 're doing now by punishing people who have knowledge and publicly state the failings of the system and draw attention to needed repairs... And it will come to our own soil with a vengance .
And we 'll have nobody to blame but our ill-designed domestic policies for it.Perhaps the intelligence community needs a better way of accepting reports of these problems and rewarding citizens for being diligent , instead of imprisoning them and invading their privacy as potential subversives .
And perhaps expanding the definition of citizen to include anyone who works to secure our future , domestically or internationally .
How about the concept of honorary citizen ?
These are the principles and actions we should be striving for -- not this goddamned police state bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public security research is not a threat.
Vulnerable infrastructures that go unchecked are.
The trend is to penalize security researchers for publishing their findings will only increase underground security research that will then just be sold to the highest bidder.Public security research is a threat.
But it's not the researcher's fault; It's the people who wait for research like this to be published and then use it (open source intelligence gathering) to develop attacks.
It's easier to target and blame the researcher for publication than to attempt to find the malignant factors, who are increasingly operating independently and lack connections to an organization.
Which means, in short, they're operating under the radar.
Conventional intelligence-gathering efforts depend on the fact that as the number of criminals cooperating increases, the chance of mistakes being made which expose them increase exponentially.
Also, the number of communication channels between people increase geometrically, resulting in a larger signals intelligence footprint.So basically, it's cheaper, even if it's not ethical.
And ethics, as you know, are decided by those in power.
So there will always be a rationalization to discredit and imprison people who come forward with security problems, simply because it's cheaper to do so than fix the underlying problems, which they are already well aware of and would prefer you not tell them that the emperor has no clothes.Unfortunately, the logical conclusion for this kind of reactionary thinking is that eventually a backlash will build up and people will begin independently engaging in small-scale acts of sabotage in an attempt to bring attention to these problems (which has recently started to happen domestically).
The government's over-reaction to these attempts by the citizens to excercise the only recourse left to them by creating harsher penalties, more survillance, and secret courts, will eventually result in larger targets being attacked and destroyed, by independent citizens or small groups.We've been here before -- in the late 1800s, in the 1960s and 70s, and briefly again in the late 90s.
It's cyclical.
The problem is, each time it happens, it gets worse, and the government refuses to acknowledge this systemic failure of its domestic intelligence policies.
Eventually, we're going to have another 9/11, but we won't be able to blame anyone but ourselves when angry citizens start taking out government buildings.And the reason is we've left them with no alternative: Terrorism is, in fact, a valid way of promoting change when all other methods have failed.
The strength of a democracy is the fact that we have all those other methods open to us.
Close them off, like we're doing now by punishing people who have knowledge and publicly state the failings of the system and draw attention to needed repairs... And it will come to our own soil with a vengance.
And we'll have nobody to blame but our ill-designed domestic policies for it.Perhaps the intelligence community needs a better way of accepting reports of these problems and rewarding citizens for being diligent, instead of imprisoning them and invading their privacy as potential subversives.
And perhaps expanding the definition of citizen to include anyone who works to secure our future, domestically or internationally.
How about the concept of honorary citizen?
These are the principles and actions we should be striving for -- not this goddamned police state bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557468</id>
	<title>It's far more than an over reaction</title>
	<author>testadicazzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a cultivated and educated effort at fear mongering, which is consistent with the U.S. indoctrinal system which has been in place, and under refinement, since the end of world war II.  The analyst in question has this say about himself:<blockquote><div><p>Dr.Dr. Larry M. Wortzel is president of Asia Strategies and Risks, LLC. He provides consulting services on defenses, security, political and economic issues related to China and East Asia.

Wortzel has 37 years of experience assessing events and working in the Asia-Pacific region. He is the author of two books on China&rsquo;s politics and military affairs. In addition, he has edited and contributed chapters to eight other books on China&rsquo;s military forces. Wortzel has lectured in and contributed his expertise to newspapers, magazines and government officials in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand. During a 32-year military career he served in China, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. Wortzel has been a strategist for the Pentagon and was director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. He was vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC, think tank. He is a commissioner on the Congressionally-appointed US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.</p></div></blockquote><p>
(from his webpage)
</p><p>   The guy is a member and servant of the circle of elites who profit, and enjoy enormous social success from their support of our militarized social and economic system.  Pursuading a population of relatively free and relatively educated person to support an political system which can afford to spend $3 trillion dollars <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html" title="washingtonpost.com">(washington post estimate)</a> [washingtonpost.com] on an injust, unjustified terrorist war against an impoverished nation, against a dictator we incidentally empowered and supported through the worst of his crimes, and over the objections of its own citizenry, but quails at spending $1 trillion to ensure health care said citizens.
</p><p>
Wortzel enjoys a position of prestige and wealth for his support of the forces of that are destroying us, as do the reporters and editors of the New York Times for parading his observations without the criticism they deserve.
</p><p>
For anyone with a certain amount of research background, or even basic knowledge of network security and stability issues (in this case network in question is power network), the appropriate response to the paper would be analysis, and investigation and applicatoin of measures to improve the stability.  The U.S. power grid has in recent years suffered from such cascading network failures several times in the last decade, and we Americans should be grateful that someone is investing the resources to investigate these issues.  By publishing his results in a  peer reviewed scientific journal, Mr. Wang has done us a service, and deserves our gratitude.  Instead he's getting caught up in this policy wonk's latest search for enemies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a cultivated and educated effort at fear mongering , which is consistent with the U.S. indoctrinal system which has been in place , and under refinement , since the end of world war II .
The analyst in question has this say about himself : Dr.Dr .
Larry M. Wortzel is president of Asia Strategies and Risks , LLC .
He provides consulting services on defenses , security , political and economic issues related to China and East Asia .
Wortzel has 37 years of experience assessing events and working in the Asia-Pacific region .
He is the author of two books on China    s politics and military affairs .
In addition , he has edited and contributed chapters to eight other books on China    s military forces .
Wortzel has lectured in and contributed his expertise to newspapers , magazines and government officials in China , Taiwan , South Korea , Japan , the Philippines , Malaysia , and Thailand .
During a 32-year military career he served in China , South Korea , Singapore , and Thailand .
Wortzel has been a strategist for the Pentagon and was director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College .
He was vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at The Heritage Foundation , a Washington , DC , think tank .
He is a commissioner on the Congressionally-appointed US-China Economic and Security Review Commission .
( from his webpage ) The guy is a member and servant of the circle of elites who profit , and enjoy enormous social success from their support of our militarized social and economic system .
Pursuading a population of relatively free and relatively educated person to support an political system which can afford to spend $ 3 trillion dollars ( washington post estimate ) [ washingtonpost.com ] on an injust , unjustified terrorist war against an impoverished nation , against a dictator we incidentally empowered and supported through the worst of his crimes , and over the objections of its own citizenry , but quails at spending $ 1 trillion to ensure health care said citizens .
Wortzel enjoys a position of prestige and wealth for his support of the forces of that are destroying us , as do the reporters and editors of the New York Times for parading his observations without the criticism they deserve .
For anyone with a certain amount of research background , or even basic knowledge of network security and stability issues ( in this case network in question is power network ) , the appropriate response to the paper would be analysis , and investigation and applicatoin of measures to improve the stability .
The U.S. power grid has in recent years suffered from such cascading network failures several times in the last decade , and we Americans should be grateful that someone is investing the resources to investigate these issues .
By publishing his results in a peer reviewed scientific journal , Mr. Wang has done us a service , and deserves our gratitude .
Instead he 's getting caught up in this policy wonk 's latest search for enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a cultivated and educated effort at fear mongering, which is consistent with the U.S. indoctrinal system which has been in place, and under refinement, since the end of world war II.
The analyst in question has this say about himself:Dr.Dr.
Larry M. Wortzel is president of Asia Strategies and Risks, LLC.
He provides consulting services on defenses, security, political and economic issues related to China and East Asia.
Wortzel has 37 years of experience assessing events and working in the Asia-Pacific region.
He is the author of two books on China’s politics and military affairs.
In addition, he has edited and contributed chapters to eight other books on China’s military forces.
Wortzel has lectured in and contributed his expertise to newspapers, magazines and government officials in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand.
During a 32-year military career he served in China, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand.
Wortzel has been a strategist for the Pentagon and was director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.
He was vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC, think tank.
He is a commissioner on the Congressionally-appointed US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
(from his webpage)
   The guy is a member and servant of the circle of elites who profit, and enjoy enormous social success from their support of our militarized social and economic system.
Pursuading a population of relatively free and relatively educated person to support an political system which can afford to spend $3 trillion dollars (washington post estimate) [washingtonpost.com] on an injust, unjustified terrorist war against an impoverished nation, against a dictator we incidentally empowered and supported through the worst of his crimes, and over the objections of its own citizenry, but quails at spending $1 trillion to ensure health care said citizens.
Wortzel enjoys a position of prestige and wealth for his support of the forces of that are destroying us, as do the reporters and editors of the New York Times for parading his observations without the criticism they deserve.
For anyone with a certain amount of research background, or even basic knowledge of network security and stability issues (in this case network in question is power network), the appropriate response to the paper would be analysis, and investigation and applicatoin of measures to improve the stability.
The U.S. power grid has in recent years suffered from such cascading network failures several times in the last decade, and we Americans should be grateful that someone is investing the resources to investigate these issues.
By publishing his results in a  peer reviewed scientific journal, Mr. Wang has done us a service, and deserves our gratitude.
Instead he's getting caught up in this policy wonk's latest search for enemies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104</id>
	<title>The pro-China modbombers are out in force today.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still doesn't make it a non-threat. (Score:-1, Flamebait)</p></div><p>Such interests are legitimate threats even if the paper itself is reviewed to be harmless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still does n't make it a non-threat .
( Score : -1 , Flamebait ) Such interests are legitimate threats even if the paper itself is reviewed to be harmless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still doesn't make it a non-threat.
(Score:-1, Flamebait)Such interests are legitimate threats even if the paper itself is reviewed to be harmless.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557594</id>
	<title>Re:The pro-China modbombers are out in force today</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1269186960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Wang&rsquo;s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.</p></div><p>From what it sounds like the entire article is about him overreacting to a nonspecific, and in this case completely unworkable white paper. The news here is not that the US is vulnerable but that the people in charge of securing it are a little quick to fire off against anyone who undermines them even if they didn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Mr. Wang    s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.From what it sounds like the entire article is about him overreacting to a nonspecific , and in this case completely unworkable white paper .
The news here is not that the US is vulnerable but that the people in charge of securing it are a little quick to fire off against anyone who undermines them even if they did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.From what it sounds like the entire article is about him overreacting to a nonspecific, and in this case completely unworkable white paper.
The news here is not that the US is vulnerable but that the people in charge of securing it are a little quick to fire off against anyone who undermines them even if they didn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557438</id>
	<title>Solution to attackability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269185340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Distributed generation, using 3MWe LFTR reactors, in about 4-6 40' shipping containers, located at the distribution yards in the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Distributed generation , using 3MWe LFTR reactors , in about 4-6 40 ' shipping containers , located at the distribution yards in the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Distributed generation, using 3MWe LFTR reactors, in about 4-6 40' shipping containers, located at the distribution yards in the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557472</id>
	<title>Security?</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1269185820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to really big organizations, something like security does not exist. Social engineering and insider knowledge (which is not something to be kept secret) is usually enough to have a certain chance of convincing some moderately qualified person to assist you somehow in attacking some system. Unless you are really restrictive about communication to the outside, like no phone connections to the public phone network, only internal e-mail for all normal employees below a certain level. I would appreciate that for nuclear power plants (e.g. in case of an critical situation i dont want to have idiots from the press blocking internal communications), and i am under the impression that military around the world heavily restricts the communication  of their soldier with the outside world.

So yes - if you apply the standards of a cyberwar situation in which the opponent has all the insider knowledge, probably one can knock out a power network which is so unstable that it knocks itself out every few years (Sorry guys, as a german i find the idea of big-area blackouts happening in the US now and then just scary. Sadly also the European power network is deteriorating into the direction of the American standard - However the incident some time ago where a big line was taken off-line without enough preparation showed that the reaction off the network (partial, regionally limited blackout all over Europe, instead of an growing island of darkness) was still appropriate.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to really big organizations , something like security does not exist .
Social engineering and insider knowledge ( which is not something to be kept secret ) is usually enough to have a certain chance of convincing some moderately qualified person to assist you somehow in attacking some system .
Unless you are really restrictive about communication to the outside , like no phone connections to the public phone network , only internal e-mail for all normal employees below a certain level .
I would appreciate that for nuclear power plants ( e.g .
in case of an critical situation i dont want to have idiots from the press blocking internal communications ) , and i am under the impression that military around the world heavily restricts the communication of their soldier with the outside world .
So yes - if you apply the standards of a cyberwar situation in which the opponent has all the insider knowledge , probably one can knock out a power network which is so unstable that it knocks itself out every few years ( Sorry guys , as a german i find the idea of big-area blackouts happening in the US now and then just scary .
Sadly also the European power network is deteriorating into the direction of the American standard - However the incident some time ago where a big line was taken off-line without enough preparation showed that the reaction off the network ( partial , regionally limited blackout all over Europe , instead of an growing island of darkness ) was still appropriate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to really big organizations, something like security does not exist.
Social engineering and insider knowledge (which is not something to be kept secret) is usually enough to have a certain chance of convincing some moderately qualified person to assist you somehow in attacking some system.
Unless you are really restrictive about communication to the outside, like no phone connections to the public phone network, only internal e-mail for all normal employees below a certain level.
I would appreciate that for nuclear power plants (e.g.
in case of an critical situation i dont want to have idiots from the press blocking internal communications), and i am under the impression that military around the world heavily restricts the communication  of their soldier with the outside world.
So yes - if you apply the standards of a cyberwar situation in which the opponent has all the insider knowledge, probably one can knock out a power network which is so unstable that it knocks itself out every few years (Sorry guys, as a german i find the idea of big-area blackouts happening in the US now and then just scary.
Sadly also the European power network is deteriorating into the direction of the American standard - However the incident some time ago where a big line was taken off-line without enough preparation showed that the reaction off the network (partial, regionally limited blackout all over Europe, instead of an growing island of darkness) was still appropriate.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557938</id>
	<title>Re:It would be better</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269190620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking more along the lines of "effing great, kill the messenger".</p><p>Here's your "enemy" telling you where a critical resource of yours can be attacked. This alone is a boon, not a threat. Assess his attack vector and there are two possible reactions: Either you notice that he is wrong and you keep it at that, hoping that your enemy will believe that this is a feasible way to attack you. When they do, it fails but gives you a the psychologic and diplomatic upper hand. Or he is right and you should get your ass in gear to protect yourself, because now you know how your enemy thinks and how he would execute an attack.</p><p>Either way, this is about the best thing that could possibly happen to you.</p><p>But leave it to military intelligence to react with ballistic stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking more along the lines of " effing great , kill the messenger " .Here 's your " enemy " telling you where a critical resource of yours can be attacked .
This alone is a boon , not a threat .
Assess his attack vector and there are two possible reactions : Either you notice that he is wrong and you keep it at that , hoping that your enemy will believe that this is a feasible way to attack you .
When they do , it fails but gives you a the psychologic and diplomatic upper hand .
Or he is right and you should get your ass in gear to protect yourself , because now you know how your enemy thinks and how he would execute an attack.Either way , this is about the best thing that could possibly happen to you.But leave it to military intelligence to react with ballistic stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking more along the lines of "effing great, kill the messenger".Here's your "enemy" telling you where a critical resource of yours can be attacked.
This alone is a boon, not a threat.
Assess his attack vector and there are two possible reactions: Either you notice that he is wrong and you keep it at that, hoping that your enemy will believe that this is a feasible way to attack you.
When they do, it fails but gives you a the psychologic and diplomatic upper hand.
Or he is right and you should get your ass in gear to protect yourself, because now you know how your enemy thinks and how he would execute an attack.Either way, this is about the best thing that could possibly happen to you.But leave it to military intelligence to react with ballistic stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060</id>
	<title>It would be better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for the US Govt to give this kid a job, rather than letting the chinese use his talents.</p><p>(Or some other 3rd party like Iran)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for the US Govt to give this kid a job , rather than letting the chinese use his talents .
( Or some other 3rd party like Iran )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the US Govt to give this kid a job, rather than letting the chinese use his talents.
(Or some other 3rd party like Iran)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557346</id>
	<title>How old are these "strategists"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes I wonder how old they are. They act like children.<br>EVERYBODY knows that it&rsquo;s just a research paper.<br>But these people always pull some childish obvious bullshit out of it.</p><p>It really reminds me of the latest South Park episode.<br>&ldquo;Yeah, must be a wizard alien!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *shifty eyes*&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I wonder how old they are .
They act like children.EVERYBODY knows that it    s just a research paper.But these people always pull some childish obvious bullshit out of it.It really reminds me of the latest South Park episode.    Yeah , must be a wizard alien !
... * shifty eyes *   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I wonder how old they are.
They act like children.EVERYBODY knows that it’s just a research paper.But these people always pull some childish obvious bullshit out of it.It really reminds me of the latest South Park episode.“Yeah, must be a wizard alien!
... *shifty eyes*”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557428</id>
	<title>US Politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We Are At War With Everybody</p><p>We Have Always Been At War WIth Everybody</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We Are At War With EverybodyWe Have Always Been At War WIth Everybody</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We Are At War With EverybodyWe Have Always Been At War WIth Everybody</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557082</id>
	<title>Every power grid can be vulnerable</title>
	<author>simp</author>
	<datestamp>1269181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to build a power grid in country X right now, take a look at the vendors that supply the products. Then take a look a the vendors that supplied the products 10 or 20 years ago. The same dozen or so of vendors supply all the equipment from control room automation to the actual hardware to make and distribute power to everybody everywhere in the world.<br>If the US power grid can be hacked then so can most other power grids because you will find the same equipment and software over and over again.<br>It's a bit like the good old MAD during the cold war: sure you can hack my power grid, but I can also hack yours...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to build a power grid in country X right now , take a look at the vendors that supply the products .
Then take a look a the vendors that supplied the products 10 or 20 years ago .
The same dozen or so of vendors supply all the equipment from control room automation to the actual hardware to make and distribute power to everybody everywhere in the world.If the US power grid can be hacked then so can most other power grids because you will find the same equipment and software over and over again.It 's a bit like the good old MAD during the cold war : sure you can hack my power grid , but I can also hack yours.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to build a power grid in country X right now, take a look at the vendors that supply the products.
Then take a look a the vendors that supplied the products 10 or 20 years ago.
The same dozen or so of vendors supply all the equipment from control room automation to the actual hardware to make and distribute power to everybody everywhere in the world.If the US power grid can be hacked then so can most other power grids because you will find the same equipment and software over and over again.It's a bit like the good old MAD during the cold war: sure you can hack my power grid, but I can also hack yours...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558034</id>
	<title>Re:This has always been the problem with the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our nuclear facilities are on closed loop power systems so if china does attack<br>they will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'<br>This is something they cannot stop and along with<br>armed citizenry the Chinese will never be a threat.</p><p>I have calculated this and if China can turn off the U.S. power<br>grid they will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'</p><p>stalemate again..</p><p>Love J.O.S.H.U.A</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our nuclear facilities are on closed loop power systems so if china does attackthey will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'This is something they can not stop and along witharmed citizenry the Chinese will never be a threat.I have calculated this and if China can turn off the U.S. powergrid they will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'stalemate again..Love J.O.S.H.U.A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our nuclear facilities are on closed loop power systems so if china does attackthey will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'This is something they cannot stop and along witharmed citizenry the Chinese will never be a threat.I have calculated this and if China can turn off the U.S. powergrid they will have to play 'Global Thermal Nuclear War'stalemate again..Love J.O.S.H.U.A</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557154</id>
	<title>Fros7 pist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">FreeBSD continues operaTing systems, *BSD has lost more Offended some Dying. See? It's marketing surveys reasons why anyone the resignation JOIN THE GNAA!! Rapid,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD continues operaTing systems , * BSD has lost more Offended some Dying .
See ? It 's marketing surveys reasons why anyone the resignation JOIN THE GNAA ! !
Rapid , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD continues operaTing systems, *BSD has lost more Offended some Dying.
See? It's marketing surveys reasons why anyone the resignation JOIN THE GNAA!!
Rapid, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558318</id>
	<title>Re:This has always been the problem with the U.S.</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1269194400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just read Unrestricted Warfare</p></div></blockquote><p>I got interested and read a few passages. I am convinced it is a forgery, and of bad quality at that. One hilarious passage read:</p><blockquote><div><p>[...] Bill Gates opens new "Windows" each year, and "Dolly," the cloned sheep, proves that <strong>mankind is now planning to take the place of God the Creator</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Only a conservative Christian could write such a passage. A PLA colonel would avoid religious references entirely, and surely would not write about a single creating entity. There is some material on Wikipedia about this book, but it is very self-referential.</p><p>At best, it is heavily mistranslated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just read Unrestricted WarfareI got interested and read a few passages .
I am convinced it is a forgery , and of bad quality at that .
One hilarious passage read : [ ... ] Bill Gates opens new " Windows " each year , and " Dolly , " the cloned sheep , proves that mankind is now planning to take the place of God the Creator.Only a conservative Christian could write such a passage .
A PLA colonel would avoid religious references entirely , and surely would not write about a single creating entity .
There is some material on Wikipedia about this book , but it is very self-referential.At best , it is heavily mistranslated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just read Unrestricted WarfareI got interested and read a few passages.
I am convinced it is a forgery, and of bad quality at that.
One hilarious passage read:[...] Bill Gates opens new "Windows" each year, and "Dolly," the cloned sheep, proves that mankind is now planning to take the place of God the Creator.Only a conservative Christian could write such a passage.
A PLA colonel would avoid religious references entirely, and surely would not write about a single creating entity.
There is some material on Wikipedia about this book, but it is very self-referential.At best, it is heavily mistranslated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106</id>
	<title>Re:Still doesn't make it a non-threat.</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1269181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must not fear.<br>Fear is the mind-killer.<br>Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.<br>I will face my fear.<br>I will permit it to pass over me and through me.<br>And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.<br>Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.<br>Only I will remain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must not fear.Fear is the mind-killer.Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.I will face my fear.I will permit it to pass over me and through me.And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.Only I will remain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must not fear.Fear is the mind-killer.Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.I will face my fear.I will permit it to pass over me and through me.And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.Only I will remain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557348</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they turn the lights off...</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...to property they're going to legitimately own, thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate?</p></div><p>Well, just think of yourself as a caretaker. Hell, if you bought a house you don't really <i>own</i> it, not when your local government can and will take it away from you an instant if you don't pay your taxes. The essence of ownership is <i>control</i>, and we've already given that up to our own governments, and it looks like we'll eventually have to give it to China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to property they 're going to legitimately own , thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate ? Well , just think of yourself as a caretaker .
Hell , if you bought a house you do n't really own it , not when your local government can and will take it away from you an instant if you do n't pay your taxes .
The essence of ownership is control , and we 've already given that up to our own governments , and it looks like we 'll eventually have to give it to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...to property they're going to legitimately own, thanks to the much slicker trick of rigging their currency exchange rate?Well, just think of yourself as a caretaker.
Hell, if you bought a house you don't really own it, not when your local government can and will take it away from you an instant if you don't pay your taxes.
The essence of ownership is control, and we've already given that up to our own governments, and it looks like we'll eventually have to give it to China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557334</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1269184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the Chinese universities would be happy to take him, let him do his research and publish his stuff.</p><p>Just like the other researchers they are welcoming:</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the Chinese universities would be happy to take him , let him do his research and publish his stuff.Just like the other researchers they are welcoming : http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the Chinese universities would be happy to take him, let him do his research and publish his stuff.Just like the other researchers they are welcoming:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114</id>
	<title>Scapegoating abounds and we all suffer</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1269182040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the liberal in the 1950s branded as a commie pinko, to the<br>19 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend branded as a pedophile, to the<br>Casual torrent downloader branded as the biggest threat to Hollywood ever, to the<br>Security researcher branded as an enemy of the state,</p><p>we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.</p><p>Would someone please dig up J. Edgar Hoover's body and make sure he's still dead?  Methinks his ghost never left us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the liberal in the 1950s branded as a commie pinko , to the19 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend branded as a pedophile , to theCasual torrent downloader branded as the biggest threat to Hollywood ever , to theSecurity researcher branded as an enemy of the state,we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.Would someone please dig up J. Edgar Hoover 's body and make sure he 's still dead ?
Methinks his ghost never left us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the liberal in the 1950s branded as a commie pinko, to the19 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend branded as a pedophile, to theCasual torrent downloader branded as the biggest threat to Hollywood ever, to theSecurity researcher branded as an enemy of the state,we all suffer when people are scapegoated so someone can get his time in front of a microphone.Would someone please dig up J. Edgar Hoover's body and make sure he's still dead?
Methinks his ghost never left us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557590</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel...the student was a threat</p></div><p> I just hope the House Foreign Affairs Committee don't get any ideas from these crazies talking to them. I guess the war against (t)error could have started this way as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel...the student was a threat I just hope the House Foreign Affairs Committee do n't get any ideas from these crazies talking to them .
I guess the war against ( t ) error could have started this way as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bells for military strategist Larry M. Wortzel...the student was a threat I just hope the House Foreign Affairs Committee don't get any ideas from these crazies talking to them.
I guess the war against (t)error could have started this way as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31568986</id>
	<title>Typical....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1269274260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, we still live in this type of society, the whole fact that the guy even though chinese, made sure to contact the proper authorities and let them know, "hey you got a problem....here's how you fix it" would mean he is working WITH and not AGAINST the US, no? Just like if i tell someone you have a flat tire, in case he did not notice it, does not mean i am responsible not only for making it flat, but if he gets in an accident down the road, it just means he is stupid if he stills drives on it, after i told him so.</p><p>The politicians think using propaganda to hide the fact we are very fragile and could not sustain a wide range attack of this type<br>will deal with the population being aware of this, and I think the fact that this chinese guy tried to make light of the inadequacies of<br>the system, is flagrant proof of this, I wonder if it was a white male that made this public, how they would have tried to spin it to the public... something to do with insanity, or alien abduction or anything to disclaim that person from having a valid point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , we still live in this type of society , the whole fact that the guy even though chinese , made sure to contact the proper authorities and let them know , " hey you got a problem....here 's how you fix it " would mean he is working WITH and not AGAINST the US , no ?
Just like if i tell someone you have a flat tire , in case he did not notice it , does not mean i am responsible not only for making it flat , but if he gets in an accident down the road , it just means he is stupid if he stills drives on it , after i told him so.The politicians think using propaganda to hide the fact we are very fragile and could not sustain a wide range attack of this typewill deal with the population being aware of this , and I think the fact that this chinese guy tried to make light of the inadequacies ofthe system , is flagrant proof of this , I wonder if it was a white male that made this public , how they would have tried to spin it to the public... something to do with insanity , or alien abduction or anything to disclaim that person from having a valid point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, we still live in this type of society, the whole fact that the guy even though chinese, made sure to contact the proper authorities and let them know, "hey you got a problem....here's how you fix it" would mean he is working WITH and not AGAINST the US, no?
Just like if i tell someone you have a flat tire, in case he did not notice it, does not mean i am responsible not only for making it flat, but if he gets in an accident down the road, it just means he is stupid if he stills drives on it, after i told him so.The politicians think using propaganda to hide the fact we are very fragile and could not sustain a wide range attack of this typewill deal with the population being aware of this, and I think the fact that this chinese guy tried to make light of the inadequacies ofthe system, is flagrant proof of this, I wonder if it was a white male that made this public, how they would have tried to spin it to the public... something to do with insanity, or alien abduction or anything to disclaim that person from having a valid point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054</id>
	<title>Still doesn't make it a non-threat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't change that the particular individual(Wang) and his home country(China) are threats.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid</p></div><p>That presumes none of them were on China's side or favored China in any way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't change that the particular individual ( Wang ) and his home country ( China ) are threats.And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true : Mr. Wang 's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power gridThat presumes none of them were on China 's side or favored China in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't change that the particular individual(Wang) and his home country(China) are threats.And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power gridThat presumes none of them were on China's side or favored China in any way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560928</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1269170940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the sounds of it he just googled a bunch of stuff up on our electrical infra-structure wrote about it. Amazing what you can find if you look hard enough and who you can upset by connecting the dots. I've got a map freely available from the DOE National Renewable Energy Lab that would give these guys nightmares!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the sounds of it he just googled a bunch of stuff up on our electrical infra-structure wrote about it .
Amazing what you can find if you look hard enough and who you can upset by connecting the dots .
I 've got a map freely available from the DOE National Renewable Energy Lab that would give these guys nightmares !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the sounds of it he just googled a bunch of stuff up on our electrical infra-structure wrote about it.
Amazing what you can find if you look hard enough and who you can upset by connecting the dots.
I've got a map freely available from the DOE National Renewable Energy Lab that would give these guys nightmares!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557212</id>
	<title>The REAL Threat...</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1269183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is financial. There's no point maintaining a secure reliable grid if you <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci\_14303473" title="denverpost.com">can't afford to use it</a> [denverpost.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is financial .
There 's no point maintaining a secure reliable grid if you ca n't afford to use it [ denverpost.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is financial.
There's no point maintaining a secure reliable grid if you can't afford to use it [denverpost.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</id>
	<title>typical military response</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it would've been much better for this guy not to publish his research so we wouldn't know about this problem and leave it wide open. We should be thanking this man for his hard work, not lambasting him just because he happens to be Chinese.</p><p>If the Chinese government were interested in disrupting our power systems, wouldn't they be a little more secretive about their intentions than shouting out our flaws to all the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it would 've been much better for this guy not to publish his research so we would n't know about this problem and leave it wide open .
We should be thanking this man for his hard work , not lambasting him just because he happens to be Chinese.If the Chinese government were interested in disrupting our power systems , would n't they be a little more secretive about their intentions than shouting out our flaws to all the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it would've been much better for this guy not to publish his research so we wouldn't know about this problem and leave it wide open.
We should be thanking this man for his hard work, not lambasting him just because he happens to be Chinese.If the Chinese government were interested in disrupting our power systems, wouldn't they be a little more secretive about their intentions than shouting out our flaws to all the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559958</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269164640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better example would be Global Warming alarmists who have been cherry-picking studies for the last couple decades or so.  Not many people take the ID guys seriously, but an alarming number take the GW guys seriously even though the vast majority of studies indicate the current climate trends are nothing out of the ordinary.  Even when the cherry-picked studies are debunked they somehow continue to be used as evidence, because the people using them have bought a bigger megaphone than anybody else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better example would be Global Warming alarmists who have been cherry-picking studies for the last couple decades or so .
Not many people take the ID guys seriously , but an alarming number take the GW guys seriously even though the vast majority of studies indicate the current climate trends are nothing out of the ordinary .
Even when the cherry-picked studies are debunked they somehow continue to be used as evidence , because the people using them have bought a bigger megaphone than anybody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better example would be Global Warming alarmists who have been cherry-picking studies for the last couple decades or so.
Not many people take the ID guys seriously, but an alarming number take the GW guys seriously even though the vast majority of studies indicate the current climate trends are nothing out of the ordinary.
Even when the cherry-picked studies are debunked they somehow continue to be used as evidence, because the people using them have bought a bigger megaphone than anybody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31562184</id>
	<title>Proxy</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1269180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data from the Texas power grid (ERCOT) isn't accesible by IPs outside the US.</p><p>So to get the data I had to go tell my boss that I'd be accessing a proxy and would probably view some porn on my computer while doing so.</p><p>Proxys - too obscure for terrorists apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data from the Texas power grid ( ERCOT ) is n't accesible by IPs outside the US.So to get the data I had to go tell my boss that I 'd be accessing a proxy and would probably view some porn on my computer while doing so.Proxys - too obscure for terrorists apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data from the Texas power grid (ERCOT) isn't accesible by IPs outside the US.So to get the data I had to go tell my boss that I'd be accessing a proxy and would probably view some porn on my computer while doing so.Proxys - too obscure for terrorists apparently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557216</id>
	<title>Larry M. Wortzel "overeacts"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Larry M. Wortzel "overreacts"  because he needs <i>something</i> to justify his job, his pay, and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things. This will garner plenty of attention.</p><p>So much for living normally after 9/11! Enjoy the extra "security", taking your shoes off at the airport, having strangers rifle through your belongings, etc...etc...etc..</p><p>It makes many people <i>feel</i> safe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry M. Wortzel " overreacts " because he needs something to justify his job , his pay , and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things .
This will garner plenty of attention.So much for living normally after 9/11 !
Enjoy the extra " security " , taking your shoes off at the airport , having strangers rifle through your belongings , etc...etc...etc..It makes many people feel safe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Larry M. Wortzel "overreacts"  because he needs something to justify his job, his pay, and this will get him some attention which could lead to bigger and better things.
This will garner plenty of attention.So much for living normally after 9/11!
Enjoy the extra "security", taking your shoes off at the airport, having strangers rifle through your belongings, etc...etc...etc..It makes many people feel safe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557394</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>skids</author>
	<datestamp>1269185040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Case in point: the insane people who think it's dandy to use wireless technologies for intra-plant communications.</p><p>Like <a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/02/wireless-technologies-in-renewable-energy-markets" title="renewableenergyworld.com">here</a> [renewableenergyworld.com].</p><p>Perfect setup for spectrum warfare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point : the insane people who think it 's dandy to use wireless technologies for intra-plant communications.Like here [ renewableenergyworld.com ] .Perfect setup for spectrum warfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Case in point: the insane people who think it's dandy to use wireless technologies for intra-plant communications.Like here [renewableenergyworld.com].Perfect setup for spectrum warfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1269188760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is confirmation bias. The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers. When the U.S. found a paper written by a Chinese researcher that talked about using computers to <i>attack</i> the U.S. power system, they thought they found someone who was threatening U.S. security. In other words, when they found "evidence" that looked on the surface that it was what they were looking for, they jumped to the conclusion they had found it.</p><p>This is just the same as the "quote mining" we've seen from, say, intelligent design supporters who are continually on the lookout for evidence that evolution is wrong. It's also the reason that the hacked CLU emails are being misinterpreted to mean that AGW is a hoax. If you set out looking for evidence to support your idea, you need to make sure you also look for evidence that supports the opposite of your idea, and make sure you are interpreting the evidence you find correctly and neutrally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is confirmation bias .
The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers .
When the U.S. found a paper written by a Chinese researcher that talked about using computers to attack the U.S. power system , they thought they found someone who was threatening U.S. security. In other words , when they found " evidence " that looked on the surface that it was what they were looking for , they jumped to the conclusion they had found it.This is just the same as the " quote mining " we 've seen from , say , intelligent design supporters who are continually on the lookout for evidence that evolution is wrong .
It 's also the reason that the hacked CLU emails are being misinterpreted to mean that AGW is a hoax .
If you set out looking for evidence to support your idea , you need to make sure you also look for evidence that supports the opposite of your idea , and make sure you are interpreting the evidence you find correctly and neutrally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is confirmation bias.
The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers.
When the U.S. found a paper written by a Chinese researcher that talked about using computers to attack the U.S. power system, they thought they found someone who was threatening U.S. security. In other words, when they found "evidence" that looked on the surface that it was what they were looking for, they jumped to the conclusion they had found it.This is just the same as the "quote mining" we've seen from, say, intelligent design supporters who are continually on the lookout for evidence that evolution is wrong.
It's also the reason that the hacked CLU emails are being misinterpreted to mean that AGW is a hoax.
If you set out looking for evidence to support your idea, you need to make sure you also look for evidence that supports the opposite of your idea, and make sure you are interpreting the evidence you find correctly and neutrally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559824</id>
	<title>Re:Still doesn't make it a non-threat.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269163740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God that movie was hideous.  The book is a Sci-Fi classic, and there is a mini-series that did it much much better.  Please use either of those as your reference instead of the god-awful 80's movie.  I love Patrick Stewart as much as anybody, but even he couldn't make up for that movie.  It was just all wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God that movie was hideous .
The book is a Sci-Fi classic , and there is a mini-series that did it much much better .
Please use either of those as your reference instead of the god-awful 80 's movie .
I love Patrick Stewart as much as anybody , but even he could n't make up for that movie .
It was just all wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God that movie was hideous.
The book is a Sci-Fi classic, and there is a mini-series that did it much much better.
Please use either of those as your reference instead of the god-awful 80's movie.
I love Patrick Stewart as much as anybody, but even he couldn't make up for that movie.
It was just all wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557342</id>
	<title>Solar Storms Are More Of A Concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is much more likely...  <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html" title="foxnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html</a> [foxnews.com] (yeah, it's fox, but includes some relevant links)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is much more likely... http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html [ foxnews.com ] ( yeah , it 's fox , but includes some relevant links )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is much more likely...  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html [foxnews.com] (yeah, it's fox, but includes some relevant links)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561134</id>
	<title>Re:typical military response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax, and the brighter people were sure of it.  Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.</p></div><p>I thought most of it was just sophomoric trash talk, but the influencing of who got published was pretty damning. OBTW did you know that if the US signs a carbon cap and trade the <a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2010/WWFPresitem15680.html?intcmp=270" title="worldwildlife.org" rel="nofollow">WWF</a> [worldwildlife.org] will be holding <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">$60 Billion in carbon credits</a> [telegraph.co.uk] in the amazon forests?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax , and the brighter people were sure of it .
Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.I thought most of it was just sophomoric trash talk , but the influencing of who got published was pretty damning .
OBTW did you know that if the US signs a carbon cap and trade the WWF [ worldwildlife.org ] will be holding $ 60 Billion in carbon credits [ telegraph.co.uk ] in the amazon forests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax, and the brighter people were sure of it.
Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.I thought most of it was just sophomoric trash talk, but the influencing of who got published was pretty damning.
OBTW did you know that if the US signs a carbon cap and trade the WWF [worldwildlife.org] will be holding $60 Billion in carbon credits [telegraph.co.uk] in the amazon forests?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557174</id>
	<title>Re:Still doesn't make it a non-threat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citation needed</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31562084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_1242221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31559958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31561202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31563950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_1242221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31562084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31558160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31560500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_1242221.31557376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
