<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_2017242</id>
	<title>US House Passes P2P Ban On Federal Networks</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269595380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Recently, the US House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224200362">ban peer-to-peer file-sharing applications on federal computers and networks</a>.  Similar bills have been proposed before, apparently in response to confidential government documents being <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/205207/P2P-Network-Exposes-Obamas-Safehouse-Location">found on LimeWire</a>.  The <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4098/text">text of the bill</a>, however, provides a very broad definition of 'peer-to-peer file sharing software,' and may extend to more than they intend (SMB? LDAP?)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Recently , the US House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to ban peer-to-peer file-sharing applications on federal computers and networks .
Similar bills have been proposed before , apparently in response to confidential government documents being found on LimeWire .
The text of the bill , however , provides a very broad definition of 'peer-to-peer file sharing software, ' and may extend to more than they intend ( SMB ?
LDAP ? ) . "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Recently, the US House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to ban peer-to-peer file-sharing applications on federal computers and networks.
Similar bills have been proposed before, apparently in response to confidential government documents being found on LimeWire.
The text of the bill, however, provides a very broad definition of 'peer-to-peer file sharing software,' and may extend to more than they intend (SMB?
LDAP?)."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633280</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1269601560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's basically one more rule than what is there now for most employees. I can't speak for all, but my wife works for a federal agency, and she has no control over what happens to her computer. The whole building came in a few months ago, for example, to find they had been upgraded from XP to Windows 7 without any notice. Hilarity ensured! They have been switched back and forth between Exchange and Lotus Notes several times. And I can't send her any email attachments, they are usually and somewhat capriciously blocked.</p><p>In addition, control is from the top down. All email from the hinterland is routed via Washington, where presumably is it examined for evil and then archived forever.</p><p>She was issued a brand new out of the box IBM-branded Palm III in 2005. She finally got a Blackberry two or three years ago.</p><p>And so on, at the whim of whatever contractor they have selected to do IT (most of the federal-employed IT people have been let go and rehired as contractors.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically one more rule than what is there now for most employees .
I ca n't speak for all , but my wife works for a federal agency , and she has no control over what happens to her computer .
The whole building came in a few months ago , for example , to find they had been upgraded from XP to Windows 7 without any notice .
Hilarity ensured !
They have been switched back and forth between Exchange and Lotus Notes several times .
And I ca n't send her any email attachments , they are usually and somewhat capriciously blocked.In addition , control is from the top down .
All email from the hinterland is routed via Washington , where presumably is it examined for evil and then archived forever.She was issued a brand new out of the box IBM-branded Palm III in 2005 .
She finally got a Blackberry two or three years ago.And so on , at the whim of whatever contractor they have selected to do IT ( most of the federal-employed IT people have been let go and rehired as contractors .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically one more rule than what is there now for most employees.
I can't speak for all, but my wife works for a federal agency, and she has no control over what happens to her computer.
The whole building came in a few months ago, for example, to find they had been upgraded from XP to Windows 7 without any notice.
Hilarity ensured!
They have been switched back and forth between Exchange and Lotus Notes several times.
And I can't send her any email attachments, they are usually and somewhat capriciously blocked.In addition, control is from the top down.
All email from the hinterland is routed via Washington, where presumably is it examined for evil and then archived forever.She was issued a brand new out of the box IBM-branded Palm III in 2005.
She finally got a Blackberry two or three years ago.And so on, at the whim of whatever contractor they have selected to do IT (most of the federal-employed IT people have been let go and rehired as contractors.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633448</id>
	<title>Re:How will the government botnets run!?!?</title>
	<author>Nakor BlueRider</author>
	<datestamp>1269602580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the CIA is independent, would this even affect them at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the CIA is independent , would this even affect them at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the CIA is independent, would this even affect them at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633324</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Microsoft lobbyists are in bed with congress critters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Microsoft lobbyists are in bed with congress critters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Microsoft lobbyists are in bed with congress critters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633176</id>
	<title>Lame site...</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1269601020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>doesn't show the text in Opera. ( I'll assume it's a site problem, since Opera 10.51 scores perfect on all the acid tests).<br> <br> <a href="http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr4098" title="loc.gov">Here's a better one</a> [loc.gov], and official, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't show the text in Opera .
( I 'll assume it 's a site problem , since Opera 10.51 scores perfect on all the acid tests ) .
Here 's a better one [ loc.gov ] , and official , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't show the text in Opera.
( I'll assume it's a site problem, since Opera 10.51 scores perfect on all the acid tests).
Here's a better one [loc.gov], and official, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633116</id>
	<title>Re:Bad law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making, so often? Do other sectors suffer to such a degree?</p> </div><p>Absolutely.   There is no sector of the law where somebody can't find a corner to hang all sorts of absurdity upon.  That's why there is the legal code and the case law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making , so often ?
Do other sectors suffer to such a degree ?
Absolutely. There is no sector of the law where somebody ca n't find a corner to hang all sorts of absurdity upon .
That 's why there is the legal code and the case law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making, so often?
Do other sectors suffer to such a degree?
Absolutely.   There is no sector of the law where somebody can't find a corner to hang all sorts of absurdity upon.
That's why there is the legal code and the case law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634176</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269606960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now.</p></div></blockquote><p>That is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. We cannot allow any  piece of our infrastructure to be so dependent on a single company, especially not the OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else ' , Linux for example , will take an extremely long time , and may well end up worse than it is now.That is a problem , and it needs to be addressed .
We can not allow any piece of our infrastructure to be so dependent on a single company , especially not the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now.That is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.
We cannot allow any  piece of our infrastructure to be so dependent on a single company, especially not the OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637342</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1269631320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say it's a reaction to ACTA. They're not an ISP, so have no safe-harbour, and therefore must ban anything like "open" P2P where they could potentially be held responsible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it 's a reaction to ACTA .
They 're not an ISP , so have no safe-harbour , and therefore must ban anything like " open " P2P where they could potentially be held responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it's a reaction to ACTA.
They're not an ISP, so have no safe-harbour, and therefore must ban anything like "open" P2P where they could potentially be held responsible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633566</id>
	<title>smb/ldap</title>
	<author>datapharmer</author>
	<datestamp>1269603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well unless they screwed up even more than usual, smb and ldap should be safe as they are server-to-client and not peer-to-peer... I can see this having some rather bad side effects on their network routing setups though.... No more netbios m-node etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well unless they screwed up even more than usual , smb and ldap should be safe as they are server-to-client and not peer-to-peer... I can see this having some rather bad side effects on their network routing setups though.... No more netbios m-node etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well unless they screwed up even more than usual, smb and ldap should be safe as they are server-to-client and not peer-to-peer... I can see this having some rather bad side effects on their network routing setups though.... No more netbios m-node etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637272</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269630000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of a large company I once worked for after having been sucked up in an acquisition. About once a year, usually after some virus outbreak completely unrelated to unapproved third party software, an email would come from the VP of development declaring something like <i>"Only approved applications may be run on any corporate machine - see the list here. If you believe you need other software, contact Ms. Software Cop for consideration in the approved list or so Ms. Software Cop can identify an appropriate substitute approved product"</i>.
<br> <br>
My response was always the same. I inventoried the software on my Windows PC and diffed it to the approved list. I of course found all sort of evil unapproved things on my machine (emacs, SysInternals tools, cygwin, Xming, Putty, WinDbg, etc).
<br> <br>
I then sent this list (usually about 25 "free" software products) to Ms. Software Cop along with a short paragraph on each describing what it was, what I used it for, why I selected it over other alternatives, and an overview of the relevant license conditions. Then I asked if I should uninstall all these products -- but that I needed to know in the next three days as I would need to change my schedules to reflect the resulting loss of productivity and delaying the next release was going to be much less painful if done quickly.
<br> <br>
Of course, I wouldn't hear back on my request, so I would begin to nag Ms. Software Cop with emails copied increasingly high on both her and my management chain. This would usually get a response and a phone discussion with Ms. Software Cop . I'd start with emacs - and be informed that the standard "approved" editor (which they paid real money for and I had never heard of - it seems someone thought it was cool because it would highlight C++ keywords and constructs and auto indent - wow!) should be adequate -- at which time I'd look at my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.emacs file and innocently inquire about how the approved editor provided something like ediff and how, exactly, I could sort a set or records in it and how, exactly, I could do a global replace using regular expressions picking some part of the matched string as part of the replacement string. Poor Ms. Software Cop had no clue what I was talking about (and it didn't get better when we moved on to X or Putty). Eventually she would decide that she would have to research my list and that I didn't need to uninstall them until she got back to me. Of course, I requested a commitment to when she would get back to me and she would always say in "three weeks" (she seemed to guess my attention span was less than two weeks). I, of course, put an event in my calendar and three weeks and one day later I'd send an email (copied to all the same management folks I had copied the last nag email) noting I'd not heard back and asking if I should now delete the evil software and change my schedules. Of course, again, Ms. Software Cop would say she was still working on it. Then, about every three weeks I'd "rinse and repeat" until I was completely bored with the game (usually about three months of this) and send a final note indicating that since I hadn't heard back, I assumed that my applications were authorized until otherwise notified.
<br> <br>
For some reason, Ms. Software Cop never sent me a holiday card - I was always hurt by that as I was trying so hard to help her do her job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a large company I once worked for after having been sucked up in an acquisition .
About once a year , usually after some virus outbreak completely unrelated to unapproved third party software , an email would come from the VP of development declaring something like " Only approved applications may be run on any corporate machine - see the list here .
If you believe you need other software , contact Ms. Software Cop for consideration in the approved list or so Ms. Software Cop can identify an appropriate substitute approved product " .
My response was always the same .
I inventoried the software on my Windows PC and diffed it to the approved list .
I of course found all sort of evil unapproved things on my machine ( emacs , SysInternals tools , cygwin , Xming , Putty , WinDbg , etc ) .
I then sent this list ( usually about 25 " free " software products ) to Ms. Software Cop along with a short paragraph on each describing what it was , what I used it for , why I selected it over other alternatives , and an overview of the relevant license conditions .
Then I asked if I should uninstall all these products -- but that I needed to know in the next three days as I would need to change my schedules to reflect the resulting loss of productivity and delaying the next release was going to be much less painful if done quickly .
Of course , I would n't hear back on my request , so I would begin to nag Ms. Software Cop with emails copied increasingly high on both her and my management chain .
This would usually get a response and a phone discussion with Ms. Software Cop .
I 'd start with emacs - and be informed that the standard " approved " editor ( which they paid real money for and I had never heard of - it seems someone thought it was cool because it would highlight C + + keywords and constructs and auto indent - wow !
) should be adequate -- at which time I 'd look at my .emacs file and innocently inquire about how the approved editor provided something like ediff and how , exactly , I could sort a set or records in it and how , exactly , I could do a global replace using regular expressions picking some part of the matched string as part of the replacement string .
Poor Ms. Software Cop had no clue what I was talking about ( and it did n't get better when we moved on to X or Putty ) .
Eventually she would decide that she would have to research my list and that I did n't need to uninstall them until she got back to me .
Of course , I requested a commitment to when she would get back to me and she would always say in " three weeks " ( she seemed to guess my attention span was less than two weeks ) .
I , of course , put an event in my calendar and three weeks and one day later I 'd send an email ( copied to all the same management folks I had copied the last nag email ) noting I 'd not heard back and asking if I should now delete the evil software and change my schedules .
Of course , again , Ms. Software Cop would say she was still working on it .
Then , about every three weeks I 'd " rinse and repeat " until I was completely bored with the game ( usually about three months of this ) and send a final note indicating that since I had n't heard back , I assumed that my applications were authorized until otherwise notified .
For some reason , Ms. Software Cop never sent me a holiday card - I was always hurt by that as I was trying so hard to help her do her job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a large company I once worked for after having been sucked up in an acquisition.
About once a year, usually after some virus outbreak completely unrelated to unapproved third party software, an email would come from the VP of development declaring something like "Only approved applications may be run on any corporate machine - see the list here.
If you believe you need other software, contact Ms. Software Cop for consideration in the approved list or so Ms. Software Cop can identify an appropriate substitute approved product".
My response was always the same.
I inventoried the software on my Windows PC and diffed it to the approved list.
I of course found all sort of evil unapproved things on my machine (emacs, SysInternals tools, cygwin, Xming, Putty, WinDbg, etc).
I then sent this list (usually about 25 "free" software products) to Ms. Software Cop along with a short paragraph on each describing what it was, what I used it for, why I selected it over other alternatives, and an overview of the relevant license conditions.
Then I asked if I should uninstall all these products -- but that I needed to know in the next three days as I would need to change my schedules to reflect the resulting loss of productivity and delaying the next release was going to be much less painful if done quickly.
Of course, I wouldn't hear back on my request, so I would begin to nag Ms. Software Cop with emails copied increasingly high on both her and my management chain.
This would usually get a response and a phone discussion with Ms. Software Cop .
I'd start with emacs - and be informed that the standard "approved" editor (which they paid real money for and I had never heard of - it seems someone thought it was cool because it would highlight C++ keywords and constructs and auto indent - wow!
) should be adequate -- at which time I'd look at my .emacs file and innocently inquire about how the approved editor provided something like ediff and how, exactly, I could sort a set or records in it and how, exactly, I could do a global replace using regular expressions picking some part of the matched string as part of the replacement string.
Poor Ms. Software Cop had no clue what I was talking about (and it didn't get better when we moved on to X or Putty).
Eventually she would decide that she would have to research my list and that I didn't need to uninstall them until she got back to me.
Of course, I requested a commitment to when she would get back to me and she would always say in "three weeks" (she seemed to guess my attention span was less than two weeks).
I, of course, put an event in my calendar and three weeks and one day later I'd send an email (copied to all the same management folks I had copied the last nag email) noting I'd not heard back and asking if I should now delete the evil software and change my schedules.
Of course, again, Ms. Software Cop would say she was still working on it.
Then, about every three weeks I'd "rinse and repeat" until I was completely bored with the game (usually about three months of this) and send a final note indicating that since I hadn't heard back, I assumed that my applications were authorized until otherwise notified.
For some reason, Ms. Software Cop never sent me a holiday card - I was always hurt by that as I was trying so hard to help her do her job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637738</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>grahammm</author>
	<datestamp>1269682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now. Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500. For better or worse, an org of that size <i>can't</i> just switch.</p></div><p>The other question is how did Windows become so entrenched? At one time, nearly all Government computers would have been running IBM's MVS, VM, DOS (the mainframe OS, not PC/MS DOS) etc, CP/M, VMS or some flavour of Unix. For many, especially clerical and 'call centre' like roles, users does a Windows PC offer better productivity and make the job easier than using a 3270 terminal connected to the mainframe to fill in forms and get back the responses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else ' , Linux for example , will take an extremely long time , and may well end up worse than it is now .
Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500 .
For better or worse , an org of that size ca n't just switch.The other question is how did Windows become so entrenched ?
At one time , nearly all Government computers would have been running IBM 's MVS , VM , DOS ( the mainframe OS , not PC/MS DOS ) etc , CP/M , VMS or some flavour of Unix .
For many , especially clerical and 'call centre ' like roles , users does a Windows PC offer better productivity and make the job easier than using a 3270 terminal connected to the mainframe to fill in forms and get back the responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now.
Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500.
For better or worse, an org of that size can't just switch.The other question is how did Windows become so entrenched?
At one time, nearly all Government computers would have been running IBM's MVS, VM, DOS (the mainframe OS, not PC/MS DOS) etc, CP/M, VMS or some flavour of Unix.
For many, especially clerical and 'call centre' like roles, users does a Windows PC offer better productivity and make the job easier than using a 3270 terminal connected to the mainframe to fill in forms and get back the responses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31636040</id>
	<title>But without P2P....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how will we ever download those multi-mega page bills that seem to be all the rage in congress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how will we ever download those multi-mega page bills that seem to be all the rage in congress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how will we ever download those multi-mega page bills that seem to be all the rage in congress?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633592</id>
	<title>Bill seems to contradict itself</title>
	<author>VTEX</author>
	<datestamp>1269603420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears that this bill is extremely poorly written in how it defines peer-to-peer software:<br> <br>
From the bill:<p><div class="quote"><p>(3) PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING SOFTWARE- The term &lsquo;peer-to-peer file sharing software&rsquo;--<br>
(A) means a program, application, or software that is commercially marketed or distributed to the public and that enables--<br>
(i) a file or files on the computer on which such program is installed to be designated as available for searching and copying to one or more other computers;<br>
(ii) the searching of files on the computer on which such program is installed and the copying of any such file to another computer--  (I) at the initiative of such other computer and without requiring any action by an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed; and  (II) without requiring an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to have selected or designated another computer as the recipient of any such file; and<br>
(iii) an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to search files on one or more other computers using the same or a compatible program, application, or software, and copy such files to such owner or user&rsquo;s computer; and
<br> <br>
(B) does not include a program, application, or software designed primarily--<br>
(i) to operate as a server that is accessible over the Internet using the Internet Domain Name system;<br>
(ii) to transmit or receive email messages, instant messaging, real-time audio or video communications, or real-time voice communications; or</p></div><p>

First off, wouldn't "the Internet Domain Name system" include reverse DNS?  Secondly, "Peer-to-peer" software is nothing more than machines acting as both "clients" and "servers" and the broadness of what they believe "peer-to-peer" programs are could include public web servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that this bill is extremely poorly written in how it defines peer-to-peer software : From the bill : ( 3 ) PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING SOFTWARE- The term    peer-to-peer file sharing software    -- ( A ) means a program , application , or software that is commercially marketed or distributed to the public and that enables-- ( i ) a file or files on the computer on which such program is installed to be designated as available for searching and copying to one or more other computers ; ( ii ) the searching of files on the computer on which such program is installed and the copying of any such file to another computer-- ( I ) at the initiative of such other computer and without requiring any action by an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed ; and ( II ) without requiring an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to have selected or designated another computer as the recipient of any such file ; and ( iii ) an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to search files on one or more other computers using the same or a compatible program , application , or software , and copy such files to such owner or user    s computer ; and ( B ) does not include a program , application , or software designed primarily-- ( i ) to operate as a server that is accessible over the Internet using the Internet Domain Name system ; ( ii ) to transmit or receive email messages , instant messaging , real-time audio or video communications , or real-time voice communications ; or First off , would n't " the Internet Domain Name system " include reverse DNS ?
Secondly , " Peer-to-peer " software is nothing more than machines acting as both " clients " and " servers " and the broadness of what they believe " peer-to-peer " programs are could include public web servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that this bill is extremely poorly written in how it defines peer-to-peer software: 
From the bill:(3) PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING SOFTWARE- The term ‘peer-to-peer file sharing software’--
(A) means a program, application, or software that is commercially marketed or distributed to the public and that enables--
(i) a file or files on the computer on which such program is installed to be designated as available for searching and copying to one or more other computers;
(ii) the searching of files on the computer on which such program is installed and the copying of any such file to another computer--  (I) at the initiative of such other computer and without requiring any action by an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed; and  (II) without requiring an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to have selected or designated another computer as the recipient of any such file; and
(iii) an owner or authorized user of the computer on which such program is installed to search files on one or more other computers using the same or a compatible program, application, or software, and copy such files to such owner or user’s computer; and
 
(B) does not include a program, application, or software designed primarily--
(i) to operate as a server that is accessible over the Internet using the Internet Domain Name system;
(ii) to transmit or receive email messages, instant messaging, real-time audio or video communications, or real-time voice communications; or

First off, wouldn't "the Internet Domain Name system" include reverse DNS?
Secondly, "Peer-to-peer" software is nothing more than machines acting as both "clients" and "servers" and the broadness of what they believe "peer-to-peer" programs are could include public web servers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637584</id>
	<title>Re:How will the government botnets run!?!?</title>
	<author>supersat</author>
	<datestamp>1269722940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government contractors are covered by this bill as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government contractors are covered by this bill as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government contractors are covered by this bill as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092</id>
	<title>Re:IT department's nightmare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People shouldn't be making servers out of their company desktops... it's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs, and then inviting other users to use the file. Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL, and then you've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then...</p></div><p>Yeah, but the problem is precisely too much locking down: workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be. People turn their workstations into servers because the alternatively of wrestling with the company bureaucracy to arrive at an unsatisfactory solution isn't very appealing. It would be better for all involved to provide an easy way for people to do these things in a safe environment where it can be monitored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People should n't be making servers out of their company desktops... it 's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs , and then inviting other users to use the file .
Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL , and then you 've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then...Yeah , but the problem is precisely too much locking down : workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be .
People turn their workstations into servers because the alternatively of wrestling with the company bureaucracy to arrive at an unsatisfactory solution is n't very appealing .
It would be better for all involved to provide an easy way for people to do these things in a safe environment where it can be monitored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People shouldn't be making servers out of their company desktops... it's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs, and then inviting other users to use the file.
Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL, and then you've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then...Yeah, but the problem is precisely too much locking down: workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be.
People turn their workstations into servers because the alternatively of wrestling with the company bureaucracy to arrive at an unsatisfactory solution isn't very appealing.
It would be better for all involved to provide an easy way for people to do these things in a safe environment where it can be monitored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633100</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1269600540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers? I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed. And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.</p><p>Come on people - federal security! Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</p></div><p>ECHO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers ?
I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed .
And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.Come on people - federal security !
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway ? ECHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers?
I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed.
And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.Come on people - federal security!
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?ECHO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1269602220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed.</i> <br> <br>That's pretty much the way it is. They actually have a pretty secure MS ecosystem. Between DISA, NIST and USAF and Microsoft, they've come up with the <a href="http://nvd.nist.gov/fdcc/index.cfm/" title="nist.gov">Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC)</a> [nist.gov] (which is an outgrowth of the USAF 'Standard Desktop Computer' (SDC)). <br> <br>Various security settings, GPO's, etc. <i>If</i> you use a standard FDCC image, it is pretty well locked down, AND can be administered from anywhere. Having said that...'locked down' as much as XP or Vista can be. But the VAST majority of users do not need much more than Office and the base OS. No real need for 8 zillion extra little tools, which may or may not have their own vuln's. <br>But there is quite a lot on the approved list. Installed on a case by case eval. Wireshark or Firefox, for example. It is up to each department to further refine that list. For instance, the USAF (mostly) bans Firefox in favor of IE7.<br> <br> <i>Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</i> <br> <br>Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now. Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500. For better or worse, an org of that size <i>can't</i> just switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed .
That 's pretty much the way it is .
They actually have a pretty secure MS ecosystem .
Between DISA , NIST and USAF and Microsoft , they 've come up with the Federal Desktop Core Configuration ( FDCC ) [ nist.gov ] ( which is an outgrowth of the USAF 'Standard Desktop Computer ' ( SDC ) ) .
Various security settings , GPO 's , etc .
If you use a standard FDCC image , it is pretty well locked down , AND can be administered from anywhere .
Having said that...'locked down ' as much as XP or Vista can be .
But the VAST majority of users do not need much more than Office and the base OS .
No real need for 8 zillion extra little tools , which may or may not have their own vuln 's .
But there is quite a lot on the approved list .
Installed on a case by case eval .
Wireshark or Firefox , for example .
It is up to each department to further refine that list .
For instance , the USAF ( mostly ) bans Firefox in favor of IE7 .
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway ?
Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else ' , Linux for example , will take an extremely long time , and may well end up worse than it is now .
Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500 .
For better or worse , an org of that size ca n't just switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed.
That's pretty much the way it is.
They actually have a pretty secure MS ecosystem.
Between DISA, NIST and USAF and Microsoft, they've come up with the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) [nist.gov] (which is an outgrowth of the USAF 'Standard Desktop Computer' (SDC)).
Various security settings, GPO's, etc.
If you use a standard FDCC image, it is pretty well locked down, AND can be administered from anywhere.
Having said that...'locked down' as much as XP or Vista can be.
But the VAST majority of users do not need much more than Office and the base OS.
No real need for 8 zillion extra little tools, which may or may not have their own vuln's.
But there is quite a lot on the approved list.
Installed on a case by case eval.
Wireshark or Firefox, for example.
It is up to each department to further refine that list.
For instance, the USAF (mostly) bans Firefox in favor of IE7.
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?
Changing the US fed govt infrastructure from MS to 'something else', Linux for example, will take an extremely long time, and may well end up worse than it is now.
Take the Munich example and multiply the problems by 500.
For better or worse, an org of that size can't just switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634276</id>
	<title>Uh oh, better turn off Windows Update!</title>
	<author>Xenophon Fenderson,</author>
	<datestamp>1269607560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=66D250FA-670F-4A49-95EC-2FFDA7691F55" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">BITS is a peer-to-peer protocol</a> [microsoft.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Peer caching is a new feature of BITS 3.0 that allows peers (computers within the same subnet of a network that have the peer caching feature enabled) to share files. If peer caching is enabled on a computer, the Automatic Update agent instructs BITS to make downloaded files available to that computer's peers as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is actually a really, really useful feature for those of us operating networks (on behalf of the federal government) with significant bandwidth constraints.</p><p>And never mind the fact that BitTorrent is great for transferring large data sets over slow and unreliable data links, even if it's just from one computer to another.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because BITS is a peer-to-peer protocol [ microsoft.com ] : Peer caching is a new feature of BITS 3.0 that allows peers ( computers within the same subnet of a network that have the peer caching feature enabled ) to share files .
If peer caching is enabled on a computer , the Automatic Update agent instructs BITS to make downloaded files available to that computer 's peers as well.This is actually a really , really useful feature for those of us operating networks ( on behalf of the federal government ) with significant bandwidth constraints.And never mind the fact that BitTorrent is great for transferring large data sets over slow and unreliable data links , even if it 's just from one computer to another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because BITS is a peer-to-peer protocol [microsoft.com]:Peer caching is a new feature of BITS 3.0 that allows peers (computers within the same subnet of a network that have the peer caching feature enabled) to share files.
If peer caching is enabled on a computer, the Automatic Update agent instructs BITS to make downloaded files available to that computer's peers as well.This is actually a really, really useful feature for those of us operating networks (on behalf of the federal government) with significant bandwidth constraints.And never mind the fact that BitTorrent is great for transferring large data sets over slow and unreliable data links, even if it's just from one computer to another.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31636122</id>
	<title>shooting the messanger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly an effort to shoot the messenger.  P2P is <i>ALWAYS</i> used to send infringing material.  P2P is <i>NEVER</i> used for any other purpose.  Other methods of transmitting data on the internet are <i>NEVER</i> used to send infringing material.   The mental retard who thought this one up, doesn't have <i>ANY</i> clue about what they are doing.  When it fails, everyone cue up to laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly an effort to shoot the messenger .
P2P is ALWAYS used to send infringing material .
P2P is NEVER used for any other purpose .
Other methods of transmitting data on the internet are NEVER used to send infringing material .
The mental retard who thought this one up , does n't have ANY clue about what they are doing .
When it fails , everyone cue up to laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly an effort to shoot the messenger.
P2P is ALWAYS used to send infringing material.
P2P is NEVER used for any other purpose.
Other methods of transmitting data on the internet are NEVER used to send infringing material.
The mental retard who thought this one up, doesn't have ANY clue about what they are doing.
When it fails, everyone cue up to laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632972</id>
	<title>Re:How will the government botnets run!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the government will just contract that stuff out to the likes of Halliburton and Xe (formerly Blackwater).</p><p>Ron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the government will just contract that stuff out to the likes of Halliburton and Xe ( formerly Blackwater ) .Ron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the government will just contract that stuff out to the likes of Halliburton and Xe (formerly Blackwater).Ron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632926</id>
	<title>How am I supposed to patch World of Warcraft??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now how will I patch World of Wacraft on Federal Networks?  Blizzard uses a torrent-based patching system.  Won't someone think of the MMRPG players!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how will I patch World of Wacraft on Federal Networks ?
Blizzard uses a torrent-based patching system .
Wo n't someone think of the MMRPG players !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how will I patch World of Wacraft on Federal Networks?
Blizzard uses a torrent-based patching system.
Won't someone think of the MMRPG players!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31639858</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the bill again. It applies to all networks (no restrictions to "open networks" in Sec. 2,) and directs the establishment of procedures for appealing for the use of specific software on open networks, on a case-by-case basis (2.b.)</p><p>The peer-to-peer definition may not apply to LDAP in general, as it concentrates on user-directed retrieval of files (Microsoft's LDAP-based Active Directory is excluded anyway under 4.3.b.iii ). NFS, SMB, FTP, HTTP, and CVS services do fall under the definition.  Client-server applications are not inherently excluded, as long as "a compatible program, application, or software" (4.3.A.iii) can be used by the server's user to access or download files.  I would expect most web servers in practical use also have a web browser installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the bill again .
It applies to all networks ( no restrictions to " open networks " in Sec .
2 , ) and directs the establishment of procedures for appealing for the use of specific software on open networks , on a case-by-case basis ( 2.b .
) The peer-to-peer definition may not apply to LDAP in general , as it concentrates on user-directed retrieval of files ( Microsoft 's LDAP-based Active Directory is excluded anyway under 4.3.b.iii ) .
NFS , SMB , FTP , HTTP , and CVS services do fall under the definition .
Client-server applications are not inherently excluded , as long as " a compatible program , application , or software " ( 4.3.A.iii ) can be used by the server 's user to access or download files .
I would expect most web servers in practical use also have a web browser installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the bill again.
It applies to all networks (no restrictions to "open networks" in Sec.
2,) and directs the establishment of procedures for appealing for the use of specific software on open networks, on a case-by-case basis (2.b.
)The peer-to-peer definition may not apply to LDAP in general, as it concentrates on user-directed retrieval of files (Microsoft's LDAP-based Active Directory is excluded anyway under 4.3.b.iii ).
NFS, SMB, FTP, HTTP, and CVS services do fall under the definition.
Client-server applications are not inherently excluded, as long as "a compatible program, application, or software" (4.3.A.iii) can be used by the server's user to access or download files.
I would expect most web servers in practical use also have a web browser installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31636364</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1269620940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.</em> </p><p>I have another genius idea. The doors to the buildings should be LOCKED at night!</p><p>(You know, the idiom "It goes without saying" is meant to be taken literally.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And NO ONE has admin access to their computer .
I have another genius idea .
The doors to the buildings should be LOCKED at night !
( You know , the idiom " It goes without saying " is meant to be taken literally .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.
I have another genius idea.
The doors to the buildings should be LOCKED at night!
(You know, the idiom "It goes without saying" is meant to be taken literally.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633464</id>
	<title>Re:IT department's nightmare</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1269602640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually agree with you.  However there is a major problem that has to be overcome:  folks don't know what they want in advance and the process for getting it all working right later is difficult even if the IT department cooperates fully.  Either the IT department is in control of the design of the db needed for some in-house tool or you are stuck back with the idea that folks (with no training in database management, formal or otherwise) are doing their db design in access and then moving the data over to a networked database server like MS SQL or PostgreSQL....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually agree with you .
However there is a major problem that has to be overcome : folks do n't know what they want in advance and the process for getting it all working right later is difficult even if the IT department cooperates fully .
Either the IT department is in control of the design of the db needed for some in-house tool or you are stuck back with the idea that folks ( with no training in database management , formal or otherwise ) are doing their db design in access and then moving the data over to a networked database server like MS SQL or PostgreSQL... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually agree with you.
However there is a major problem that has to be overcome:  folks don't know what they want in advance and the process for getting it all working right later is difficult even if the IT department cooperates fully.
Either the IT department is in control of the design of the db needed for some in-house tool or you are stuck back with the idea that folks (with no training in database management, formal or otherwise) are doing their db design in access and then moving the data over to a networked database server like MS SQL or PostgreSQL....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635938</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>McGruber</author>
	<datestamp>1269617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Come on people - federal security! Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</p></div><p>I'm a career US federal government employee. </p><p>

Right after the then-Governor of Texas became President, my employer (a federal agency) "standardized" on computers from a vendor headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.  We were no longer allowed to purchase computers from any other company.  This decision was made by a political appointee, appointed by the President.  </p><p>

Right after the same Administration settled the MS anti-trust suit, our agency "standardized" on MS-Software  -- Windows is the only operating session we were allowed to run, our email was moved over to Exchange, our websites were moved to MS-platforms, we were forced to move to only MS applications (Word, Powerpoint, Excel), etc.  While this sounds bad, it actually used to be worse - for a while, we could only buy PDAs that ran Windows/CE. </p><p>

Although the political appointees who made these choices left in early January 2009, my agency continues to lock more and more of our data into proprietary MS formats - we are now moving as much of our internal data as possible into Sharepoint.</p><p>

The current administration seems to be big fans of "the cloud".  From where I sit, this means that instead of just overpaying for crappy software and crappy hardware, we are going to start overpaying for crappy network services and the bandwidth to support those services.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people - federal security !
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway ? I 'm a career US federal government employee .
Right after the then-Governor of Texas became President , my employer ( a federal agency ) " standardized " on computers from a vendor headquartered in Round Rock , Texas .
We were no longer allowed to purchase computers from any other company .
This decision was made by a political appointee , appointed by the President .
Right after the same Administration settled the MS anti-trust suit , our agency " standardized " on MS-Software -- Windows is the only operating session we were allowed to run , our email was moved over to Exchange , our websites were moved to MS-platforms , we were forced to move to only MS applications ( Word , Powerpoint , Excel ) , etc .
While this sounds bad , it actually used to be worse - for a while , we could only buy PDAs that ran Windows/CE .
Although the political appointees who made these choices left in early January 2009 , my agency continues to lock more and more of our data into proprietary MS formats - we are now moving as much of our internal data as possible into Sharepoint .
The current administration seems to be big fans of " the cloud " .
From where I sit , this means that instead of just overpaying for crappy software and crappy hardware , we are going to start overpaying for crappy network services and the bandwidth to support those services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people - federal security!
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?I'm a career US federal government employee.
Right after the then-Governor of Texas became President, my employer (a federal agency) "standardized" on computers from a vendor headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.
We were no longer allowed to purchase computers from any other company.
This decision was made by a political appointee, appointed by the President.
Right after the same Administration settled the MS anti-trust suit, our agency "standardized" on MS-Software  -- Windows is the only operating session we were allowed to run, our email was moved over to Exchange, our websites were moved to MS-platforms, we were forced to move to only MS applications (Word, Powerpoint, Excel), etc.
While this sounds bad, it actually used to be worse - for a while, we could only buy PDAs that ran Windows/CE.
Although the political appointees who made these choices left in early January 2009, my agency continues to lock more and more of our data into proprietary MS formats - we are now moving as much of our internal data as possible into Sharepoint.
The current administration seems to be big fans of "the cloud".
From where I sit, this means that instead of just overpaying for crappy software and crappy hardware, we are going to start overpaying for crappy network services and the bandwidth to support those services.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637600</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>supersat</author>
	<datestamp>1269723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Internet is an open network. The SMB/CIFS protocol (which is the basis for Windows file sharing) lets you remotely connect to file shares over the Internet. Sure, most people have file sharing turned off (or at least firewalled), but Windows will still let you shoot yourself in the foot, just like P2P software will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is an open network .
The SMB/CIFS protocol ( which is the basis for Windows file sharing ) lets you remotely connect to file shares over the Internet .
Sure , most people have file sharing turned off ( or at least firewalled ) , but Windows will still let you shoot yourself in the foot , just like P2P software will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is an open network.
The SMB/CIFS protocol (which is the basis for Windows file sharing) lets you remotely connect to file shares over the Internet.
Sure, most people have file sharing turned off (or at least firewalled), but Windows will still let you shoot yourself in the foot, just like P2P software will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1269600000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US Air Force has this and it is a major pain.<br>
It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it, however a few years ago that was removed and now there is a central office that does all approvals.  This office takes an average around 1 year to approve major software releases,aka Microsoft, and if it not then it takes longer.<br>
However even then it is a people problem, the local base level admin and security people total ignore this and install almost anything they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Air Force has this and it is a major pain .
It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it , however a few years ago that was removed and now there is a central office that does all approvals .
This office takes an average around 1 year to approve major software releases,aka Microsoft , and if it not then it takes longer .
However even then it is a people problem , the local base level admin and security people total ignore this and install almost anything they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Air Force has this and it is a major pain.
It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it, however a few years ago that was removed and now there is a central office that does all approvals.
This office takes an average around 1 year to approve major software releases,aka Microsoft, and if it not then it takes longer.
However even then it is a people problem, the local base level admin and security people total ignore this and install almost anything they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960</id>
	<title>Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read the bill it ONLY refers to OPEN-NETWORK p2p which they define as<p><div class="quote"><p>The term &lsquo;open-network&rsquo;, with respect to software, means a network in which--<br>

      (A) access is granted freely, without limitation or restriction; or<br>

      (B) there are little or no security measures in place.</p></div><p>What part of this is unreasonable in any controlled environment? Can you think of any corporation that would allow such a thing?</p><p>I wouldn't even let my kids run such a thing.</p><p>N.B. This clearly does not cover things bittorrent since you have to explicitly publish individual files to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the bill it ONLY refers to OPEN-NETWORK p2p which they define asThe term    open-network    , with respect to software , means a network in which-- ( A ) access is granted freely , without limitation or restriction ; or ( B ) there are little or no security measures in place.What part of this is unreasonable in any controlled environment ?
Can you think of any corporation that would allow such a thing ? I would n't even let my kids run such a thing.N.B .
This clearly does not cover things bittorrent since you have to explicitly publish individual files to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the bill it ONLY refers to OPEN-NETWORK p2p which they define asThe term ‘open-network’, with respect to software, means a network in which--

      (A) access is granted freely, without limitation or restriction; or

      (B) there are little or no security measures in place.What part of this is unreasonable in any controlled environment?
Can you think of any corporation that would allow such a thing?I wouldn't even let my kids run such a thing.N.B.
This clearly does not cover things bittorrent since you have to explicitly publish individual files to it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632828</id>
	<title>Uh Oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emp. Added</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>With Windows XP, you can share files</b> and documents with other users on your computer and <b>with other users on a network</b>. There is a new user interface (UI) named Simple File Sharing and a new Shared Documents feature. This article describes the new file sharing UI and discusses the following topics:</p></div><p>Get em, DOJ!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emp .
Added With Windows XP , you can share files and documents with other users on your computer and with other users on a network .
There is a new user interface ( UI ) named Simple File Sharing and a new Shared Documents feature .
This article describes the new file sharing UI and discusses the following topics : Get em , DOJ !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emp.
Added With Windows XP, you can share files and documents with other users on your computer and with other users on a network.
There is a new user interface (UI) named Simple File Sharing and a new Shared Documents feature.
This article describes the new file sharing UI and discusses the following topics:Get em, DOJ!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764</id>
	<title>How will the government botnets run!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this will greatly hinder our offensive capabilities in a cyberwar</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this will greatly hinder our offensive capabilities in a cyberwar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this will greatly hinder our offensive capabilities in a cyberwar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633472</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1269602640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They use MSFT OSs to avoid training users,</p><p>FWIW, migration could be as easy as giving the order. When the USAF went from terminals to PCs, it was simply a matter of telling them to adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They use MSFT OSs to avoid training users,FWIW , migration could be as easy as giving the order .
When the USAF went from terminals to PCs , it was simply a matter of telling them to adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use MSFT OSs to avoid training users,FWIW, migration could be as easy as giving the order.
When the USAF went from terminals to PCs, it was simply a matter of telling them to adapt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633494</id>
	<title>Re:IT department's nightmare</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1269602820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Yeah, but the problem is precisely too much locking down: workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be. </i> <br> <br>Generally, the job is not to dick around with the computer, but rather to produce something <i>using</i> the computer. Read and approve a report, produce a presentation, crunch some numbers in Excel.<br> <br>I rail against the lockeddownness too. But in an org of that size, if you give people free reign, some people WILL screw it up. And when your org also contains the DoD, do we really want to allow 'free reign' to install and configure however you want?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but the problem is precisely too much locking down : workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be .
Generally , the job is not to dick around with the computer , but rather to produce something using the computer .
Read and approve a report , produce a presentation , crunch some numbers in Excel .
I rail against the lockeddownness too .
But in an org of that size , if you give people free reign , some people WILL screw it up .
And when your org also contains the DoD , do we really want to allow 'free reign ' to install and configure however you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but the problem is precisely too much locking down: workers have always tinkered with their tools trying to improve them and the more locked down the environment the more frustrating their experience will likely be.
Generally, the job is not to dick around with the computer, but rather to produce something using the computer.
Read and approve a report, produce a presentation, crunch some numbers in Excel.
I rail against the lockeddownness too.
But in an org of that size, if you give people free reign, some people WILL screw it up.
And when your org also contains the DoD, do we really want to allow 'free reign' to install and configure however you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633560</id>
	<title>executive branch cant develop its own IT policies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269603180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thanks congress.  Glad to hear it.  You are a big help.  Dont know what we would have done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks congress .
Glad to hear it .
You are a big help .
Dont know what we would have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks congress.
Glad to hear it.
You are a big help.
Dont know what we would have done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635822</id>
	<title>Code is not Law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1)Code can be changed anytime at the whim of the dominating authority that owns that process, as is evidenced at the privy of the receptive King's or Queen's bench.<br>(2)Code is derived from the Legislative Enactment adhering to a mission statement representing a perview  in limited liability.<br>(3)Code is a artificial construct with only detectable activities at variance to law.<br>(4)Code is not endemic but compliant in tolerable regards to negotiate and direct exchange between otherwise differing hosts.<br>(5)Law can't be changed and subconscious, never accurately translated but intentionally transcribed within scope of how it might adapt in a fictitious work of art re-played by actors in a theatre among audience to it's approval.<br>(6)Law is infra-natural and resonant.</p><p>(Ex. law is DNA, code is ploy of a Virus.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Code can be changed anytime at the whim of the dominating authority that owns that process , as is evidenced at the privy of the receptive King 's or Queen 's bench .
( 2 ) Code is derived from the Legislative Enactment adhering to a mission statement representing a perview in limited liability .
( 3 ) Code is a artificial construct with only detectable activities at variance to law .
( 4 ) Code is not endemic but compliant in tolerable regards to negotiate and direct exchange between otherwise differing hosts .
( 5 ) Law ca n't be changed and subconscious , never accurately translated but intentionally transcribed within scope of how it might adapt in a fictitious work of art re-played by actors in a theatre among audience to it 's approval .
( 6 ) Law is infra-natural and resonant. ( Ex .
law is DNA , code is ploy of a Virus .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1)Code can be changed anytime at the whim of the dominating authority that owns that process, as is evidenced at the privy of the receptive King's or Queen's bench.
(2)Code is derived from the Legislative Enactment adhering to a mission statement representing a perview  in limited liability.
(3)Code is a artificial construct with only detectable activities at variance to law.
(4)Code is not endemic but compliant in tolerable regards to negotiate and direct exchange between otherwise differing hosts.
(5)Law can't be changed and subconscious, never accurately translated but intentionally transcribed within scope of how it might adapt in a fictitious work of art re-played by actors in a theatre among audience to it's approval.
(6)Law is infra-natural and resonant.(Ex.
law is DNA, code is ploy of a Virus.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635936</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1269617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Now there is a rock solid example of proprietary lock in,  it is too hard to change to something else regardless of whether it is better because the implementation might be worse. Once you get to that stage, the wisest thing to do, is an immediate swap, it breaks the lock in, it provides expertise in system changes and implementation, it breaks all existing security holes and it forces competition in supply contracts. </p><p> As for banning P2P software, that is really pointlessly dumb. Only approved software for specific use at each desktop should be installed, you never have a banned list you only have approved to install for a defined function list. I could bet my bottom dollar that once secure documents that ended up in P2P network lists did not get there by accident but where loaded onto the P2P network on purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now there is a rock solid example of proprietary lock in , it is too hard to change to something else regardless of whether it is better because the implementation might be worse .
Once you get to that stage , the wisest thing to do , is an immediate swap , it breaks the lock in , it provides expertise in system changes and implementation , it breaks all existing security holes and it forces competition in supply contracts .
As for banning P2P software , that is really pointlessly dumb .
Only approved software for specific use at each desktop should be installed , you never have a banned list you only have approved to install for a defined function list .
I could bet my bottom dollar that once secure documents that ended up in P2P network lists did not get there by accident but where loaded onto the P2P network on purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now there is a rock solid example of proprietary lock in,  it is too hard to change to something else regardless of whether it is better because the implementation might be worse.
Once you get to that stage, the wisest thing to do, is an immediate swap, it breaks the lock in, it provides expertise in system changes and implementation, it breaks all existing security holes and it forces competition in supply contracts.
As for banning P2P software, that is really pointlessly dumb.
Only approved software for specific use at each desktop should be installed, you never have a banned list you only have approved to install for a defined function list.
I could bet my bottom dollar that once secure documents that ended up in P2P network lists did not get there by accident but where loaded onto the P2P network on purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634268</id>
	<title>An insider's perspective..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269607440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I occasionally work as a lan administrator on a 'federally funded' network, and can tell you that network security on many fed networks as implemented is a joke.</p><p>True, there are some very secure federal government networks out there, but they are a hassle to try to use as they are 'whitelist' on just about everything (websites, software, applications), but it is the other end of the discussion that is more common. But at the same time I am jealous of the central command and control the lan administrators on those network possess.</p><p>There are US Government networks that are connected to the internet that:<br>- Do not have any automatic update services at all. Sneakernet updates on a CD-ROM.<br>- Virus scanning software is updated by hand distribution of definitions delivered by CD-ROMS mailed to the lan administrator.<br>- Open ports all over the place in the OS.<br>- Unneccessary applications installed.<br>- Multiple versions of the same software installed (Reader 7, 8, and 9.2!)<br>- No advertising blockers or adware removal tools.<br>-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/User/Documents And Settings/ set to world readable/world writable.<br>- Active Directory incorrectly implemented.<br>- No "least permissions needed" policy. All accounts are administrators level.</p><p>On the other hand, you have the networks created by people who know what they are doing that have:<br>- Central point patch and anti-virus update management and distribution.<br>- GPO capability fully enabled.<br>- Compartmentalized active directory.<br>- File/Account permissions set properly.<br>- Operating system enforced password rotation/change policies.</p><p>I have actually seen a network whose 'security' was pretty much the limited bandwidth that it had to the outside world. It had 8 character passwords and no rotation/complexity policy. It was 3 years behind on patches and virus updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I occasionally work as a lan administrator on a 'federally funded ' network , and can tell you that network security on many fed networks as implemented is a joke.True , there are some very secure federal government networks out there , but they are a hassle to try to use as they are 'whitelist ' on just about everything ( websites , software , applications ) , but it is the other end of the discussion that is more common .
But at the same time I am jealous of the central command and control the lan administrators on those network possess.There are US Government networks that are connected to the internet that : - Do not have any automatic update services at all .
Sneakernet updates on a CD-ROM.- Virus scanning software is updated by hand distribution of definitions delivered by CD-ROMS mailed to the lan administrator.- Open ports all over the place in the OS.- Unneccessary applications installed.- Multiple versions of the same software installed ( Reader 7 , 8 , and 9.2 !
) - No advertising blockers or adware removal tools.- /User/Documents And Settings/ set to world readable/world writable.- Active Directory incorrectly implemented.- No " least permissions needed " policy .
All accounts are administrators level.On the other hand , you have the networks created by people who know what they are doing that have : - Central point patch and anti-virus update management and distribution.- GPO capability fully enabled.- Compartmentalized active directory.- File/Account permissions set properly.- Operating system enforced password rotation/change policies.I have actually seen a network whose 'security ' was pretty much the limited bandwidth that it had to the outside world .
It had 8 character passwords and no rotation/complexity policy .
It was 3 years behind on patches and virus updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I occasionally work as a lan administrator on a 'federally funded' network, and can tell you that network security on many fed networks as implemented is a joke.True, there are some very secure federal government networks out there, but they are a hassle to try to use as they are 'whitelist' on just about everything (websites, software, applications), but it is the other end of the discussion that is more common.
But at the same time I am jealous of the central command and control the lan administrators on those network possess.There are US Government networks that are connected to the internet that:- Do not have any automatic update services at all.
Sneakernet updates on a CD-ROM.- Virus scanning software is updated by hand distribution of definitions delivered by CD-ROMS mailed to the lan administrator.- Open ports all over the place in the OS.- Unneccessary applications installed.- Multiple versions of the same software installed (Reader 7, 8, and 9.2!
)- No advertising blockers or adware removal tools.- /User/Documents And Settings/ set to world readable/world writable.- Active Directory incorrectly implemented.- No "least permissions needed" policy.
All accounts are administrators level.On the other hand, you have the networks created by people who know what they are doing that have:- Central point patch and anti-virus update management and distribution.- GPO capability fully enabled.- Compartmentalized active directory.- File/Account permissions set properly.- Operating system enforced password rotation/change policies.I have actually seen a network whose 'security' was pretty much the limited bandwidth that it had to the outside world.
It had 8 character passwords and no rotation/complexity policy.
It was 3 years behind on patches and virus updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634048</id>
	<title>The blind man describing the elephant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269606000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The House of Representatives ? ? ! !</p><p>That collection of dummies isn't smart enough to understand writing a check on an over-drawn bank account is fraud, under what stretch of the imagination are they qualified to define network configurations?</p><p>I'm sure they mean well, but then, so did the 5-yearold who put the cat in the toilet and pushed the flush handle thinking he was helping by giving the cat a bath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The House of Representatives ?
? !
! That collection of dummies is n't smart enough to understand writing a check on an over-drawn bank account is fraud , under what stretch of the imagination are they qualified to define network configurations ? I 'm sure they mean well , but then , so did the 5-yearold who put the cat in the toilet and pushed the flush handle thinking he was helping by giving the cat a bath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The House of Representatives ?
? !
!That collection of dummies isn't smart enough to understand writing a check on an over-drawn bank account is fraud, under what stretch of the imagination are they qualified to define network configurations?I'm sure they mean well, but then, so did the 5-yearold who put the cat in the toilet and pushed the flush handle thinking he was helping by giving the cat a bath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633558</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269603180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be perfectly reasonable, but why does this have to be written into the law?  Agency/Department rules seem like a more appropriate way to handle this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be perfectly reasonable , but why does this have to be written into the law ?
Agency/Department rules seem like a more appropriate way to handle this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be perfectly reasonable, but why does this have to be written into the law?
Agency/Department rules seem like a more appropriate way to handle this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633016</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1269600240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I would certainly hope that the fed's IT guys would be on top of their game, the idea of attempting to compile a central list(or, worse, have legislators try to do so) sounds like a 100\% assured productivity killer.<br> <br>

Computer security is, surprise surprise, a technical enterprise(albeit with some organizational dynamics thrown in) WTF is congress doing in there? Should we start holding elections for sysadmins, just to make sure that the will of the people is there to defend the network?<br> <br>

The idea of a room full of subject-matter nonexperts writing overbroad and dubiously sensible mandates just so that they can describe themselves as "strong on security" makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Hopefully nobody tells them how much "p2p" is going on in a DFS or AFS setup, or a failover system...</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would certainly hope that the fed 's IT guys would be on top of their game , the idea of attempting to compile a central list ( or , worse , have legislators try to do so ) sounds like a 100 \ % assured productivity killer .
Computer security is , surprise surprise , a technical enterprise ( albeit with some organizational dynamics thrown in ) WTF is congress doing in there ?
Should we start holding elections for sysadmins , just to make sure that the will of the people is there to defend the network ?
The idea of a room full of subject-matter nonexperts writing overbroad and dubiously sensible mandates just so that they can describe themselves as " strong on security " makes me throw up in my mouth a little .
Hopefully nobody tells them how much " p2p " is going on in a DFS or AFS setup , or a failover system.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I would certainly hope that the fed's IT guys would be on top of their game, the idea of attempting to compile a central list(or, worse, have legislators try to do so) sounds like a 100\% assured productivity killer.
Computer security is, surprise surprise, a technical enterprise(albeit with some organizational dynamics thrown in) WTF is congress doing in there?
Should we start holding elections for sysadmins, just to make sure that the will of the people is there to defend the network?
The idea of a room full of subject-matter nonexperts writing overbroad and dubiously sensible mandates just so that they can describe themselves as "strong on security" makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Hopefully nobody tells them how much "p2p" is going on in a DFS or AFS setup, or a failover system...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633848</id>
	<title>Re:Code is Law</title>
	<author>michael\_cain</author>
	<datestamp>1269604920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users?
It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

In fact, the policy <i>will</i> be enforced by federal government sysadmins.
Absent direction,
those sysadmins
(or their bosses)
would be free to establish their own policies,
possibly varying wildly from agency to agency,
or choose to have none.
But the <i>only</i> mechanism Congress can use to establish a single consistent policy is to pass a law.
This is fairly routine;
Congress passes lots of laws to establish policies for how the government is supposed to operate:
document retention, required publication of results, etc, etc, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users ?
It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks.. . In fact , the policy will be enforced by federal government sysadmins .
Absent direction , those sysadmins ( or their bosses ) would be free to establish their own policies , possibly varying wildly from agency to agency , or choose to have none .
But the only mechanism Congress can use to establish a single consistent policy is to pass a law .
This is fairly routine ; Congress passes lots of laws to establish policies for how the government is supposed to operate : document retention , required publication of results , etc , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users?
It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks...


In fact, the policy will be enforced by federal government sysadmins.
Absent direction,
those sysadmins
(or their bosses)
would be free to establish their own policies,
possibly varying wildly from agency to agency,
or choose to have none.
But the only mechanism Congress can use to establish a single consistent policy is to pass a law.
This is fairly routine;
Congress passes lots of laws to establish policies for how the government is supposed to operate:
document retention, required publication of results, etc, etc, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632814</id>
	<title>IT department's nightmare</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1269599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People shouldn't be making servers out of their company desktops... it's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs, and then inviting other users to use the file. Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL, and then you've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People should n't be making servers out of their company desktops... it 's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs , and then inviting other users to use the file .
Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL , and then you 've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People shouldn't be making servers out of their company desktops... it's the nightmare of the IT department to have other departments starting Access databases on their PCs, and then inviting other users to use the file.
Eventually this becomes unworkable and the user installs a smaller version of MS-SQL, and then you've got a patching nightmare which leads to a worm and then...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633006</id>
	<title>Completely useless</title>
	<author>ZuchinniOne</author>
	<datestamp>1269600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really a pity that politician don't think before they pass sweeping laws.  As the net continues to grow and the way that we share data changes this law will almost certainly prevent the gov't from being able to do useful things online<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and will need to be adjusted or repealed.</p><p>And how exactly does banning P2P sharing prevent people from leaking classified docs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really a pity that politician do n't think before they pass sweeping laws .
As the net continues to grow and the way that we share data changes this law will almost certainly prevent the gov't from being able to do useful things online ... and will need to be adjusted or repealed.And how exactly does banning P2P sharing prevent people from leaking classified docs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really a pity that politician don't think before they pass sweeping laws.
As the net continues to grow and the way that we share data changes this law will almost certainly prevent the gov't from being able to do useful things online ... and will need to be adjusted or repealed.And how exactly does banning P2P sharing prevent people from leaking classified docs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632990</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1269600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Come on people - federal security! Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</p></div><p>The answer is yes. Though if you do a full audit I'm sure you'll probably find a working copy of just about every operating system ever developed.</p><p>That being said I'd be very surprised if Windows is anything less than 90\% of the market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people - federal security !
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway ? The answer is yes .
Though if you do a full audit I 'm sure you 'll probably find a working copy of just about every operating system ever developed.That being said I 'd be very surprised if Windows is anything less than 90 \ % of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people - federal security!
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?The answer is yes.
Though if you do a full audit I'm sure you'll probably find a working copy of just about every operating system ever developed.That being said I'd be very surprised if Windows is anything less than 90\% of the market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018</id>
	<title>Code is Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users?</p><p>It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks, rather than by the government legislaors on the users of the network.<br>To use Lessig's parlance, this is a job for architecture, not law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users ? It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks , rather than by the government legislaors on the users of the network.To use Lessig 's parlance , this is a job for architecture , not law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this being done as a federal law which regulates network users?It seems to me that this is a policy that ought to be enforced by federal government sysadmins on their own networks, rather than by the government legislaors on the users of the network.To use Lessig's parlance, this is a job for architecture, not law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770</id>
	<title>Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1269599160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers? I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed. And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.</p><p>Come on people - federal security! Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers ?
I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed .
And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.Come on people - federal security !
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an issue of what can be installed on federal computers?
I believe there should be a list of what is allowed and everything else is disallowed.
And NO ONE has admin access to their computer.Come on people - federal security!
Why the hell are they running MS OSes anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633008</id>
	<title>Well, after healthcare reform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the debacle with Healthcare Reform does it  surprise anyone that Congress would create an overly broad bill to carve out absurdly broad powers?</p><p>*ducks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the debacle with Healthcare Reform does it surprise anyone that Congress would create an overly broad bill to carve out absurdly broad powers ?
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the debacle with Healthcare Reform does it  surprise anyone that Congress would create an overly broad bill to carve out absurdly broad powers?
*ducks*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632944</id>
	<title>Bad law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making, so often? Do other sectors suffer to such a degree? Presumably, government law-drafters will call on experts to clarify finer points. But this often doesn't seem to happen with computing law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making , so often ?
Do other sectors suffer to such a degree ?
Presumably , government law-drafters will call on experts to clarify finer points .
But this often does n't seem to happen with computing law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is computing subject to such vague law-making, so often?
Do other sectors suffer to such a degree?
Presumably, government law-drafters will call on experts to clarify finer points.
But this often doesn't seem to happen with computing law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635632</id>
	<title>Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Chinese?! :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269615780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Chinese?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't somebody PLEASE think of the Chinese ? !
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Chinese?!
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633062</id>
	<title>But everything on the net is peer to peer!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are always at least two peers. And one of them, having the port open, is the server. Doesn&rsquo;t matter if it has a GUI installed or is a laptop.</p><p>So in essence they are banning all connections that have a source and a target ip adress at the same time.</p><p>Wow. EPIC FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are always at least two peers .
And one of them , having the port open , is the server .
Doesn    t matter if it has a GUI installed or is a laptop.So in essence they are banning all connections that have a source and a target ip adress at the same time.Wow .
EPIC FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are always at least two peers.
And one of them, having the port open, is the server.
Doesn’t matter if it has a GUI installed or is a laptop.So in essence they are banning all connections that have a source and a target ip adress at the same time.Wow.
EPIC FAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634118</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>Message</author>
	<datestamp>1269606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have almost the same problem in the Army... there is a standard approval process that can take months or year to get something approved.. even basic things like a patch... and it doesn't even address things like do I need to get a webpart for SharePoint approved and if so what is someone really checking when it goes through the approval process</p><p>I kind of wish we had centralized censorship... as it is now someone may have access to one post but not another... and who knows when my post will get around to actually following the latest policy on social media... or I love when DoD or HQDA post a link on their website to some URL shortner or file hosting service and the local NEC has it blocked...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have almost the same problem in the Army... there is a standard approval process that can take months or year to get something approved.. even basic things like a patch... and it does n't even address things like do I need to get a webpart for SharePoint approved and if so what is someone really checking when it goes through the approval processI kind of wish we had centralized censorship... as it is now someone may have access to one post but not another... and who knows when my post will get around to actually following the latest policy on social media... or I love when DoD or HQDA post a link on their website to some URL shortner or file hosting service and the local NEC has it blocked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have almost the same problem in the Army... there is a standard approval process that can take months or year to get something approved.. even basic things like a patch... and it doesn't even address things like do I need to get a webpart for SharePoint approved and if so what is someone really checking when it goes through the approval processI kind of wish we had centralized censorship... as it is now someone may have access to one post but not another... and who knows when my post will get around to actually following the latest policy on social media... or I love when DoD or HQDA post a link on their website to some URL shortner or file hosting service and the local NEC has it blocked...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632920</id>
	<title>U.S. House Passes Ban On Anti-Lobbying Efforts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>read about it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQGXsvxQO-M&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Have a weekend, loozars.</p><p>Yours In Ufa,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>read about it here [ youtube.com ] .Have a weekend , loozars.Yours In Ufa,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read about it here [youtube.com].Have a weekend, loozars.Yours In Ufa,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634970</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1269612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be dense. "Anywhere" being "anywhere that a valid administrative user is logged onto an authenticated machine."</p><p>It becomes a necessity when the helpdesk is located five states away, or on another continent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be dense .
" Anywhere " being " anywhere that a valid administrative user is logged onto an authenticated machine .
" It becomes a necessity when the helpdesk is located five states away , or on another continent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be dense.
"Anywhere" being "anywhere that a valid administrative user is logged onto an authenticated machine.
"It becomes a necessity when the helpdesk is located five states away, or on another continent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633422</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1269602400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it,</i> <br> <br>Centralized control and admin. Used to be, a base would control its own network. No more. Even your local proxy server is now being admined from elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it , Centralized control and admin .
Used to be , a base would control its own network .
No more .
Even your local proxy server is now being admined from elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It use to be that a base could keep its own list and the local people could control it,  Centralized control and admin.
Used to be, a base would control its own network.
No more.
Even your local proxy server is now being admined from elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633854</id>
	<title>Re:Whitelist, not blacklist!</title>
	<author>CapOblivious2010</author>
	<datestamp>1269604920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>If</i> you use a standard FDCC image, it is pretty well locked down, <b>AND can be administered from anywhere.</b></p> </div><p>
Gee, I can't imagine any problems with that aspect of the situation...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use a standard FDCC image , it is pretty well locked down , AND can be administered from anywhere .
Gee , I ca n't imagine any problems with that aspect of the situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you use a standard FDCC image, it is pretty well locked down, AND can be administered from anywhere.
Gee, I can't imagine any problems with that aspect of the situation...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31636364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31639858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_2017242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31639858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31636364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31634276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31637584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31635632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_2017242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31632814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_2017242.31633494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
