<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_2150258</id>
	<title>Demand For Unmanned Aircraft Outstripping Their Capabilities</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269866580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"Has the highly successful but disparate unmanned aircraft strategy deployed by the military <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/59405">outstripped the Department of Defense's ability to handle its growth</a>?  The Air Force, Army, and Navy have requested approximately $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 for new systems and expanded capabilities. The Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request wants to increase the Air Force's Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 2011 &mdash; an increase of nearly 300\% since fiscal year 2007. In 2000, the DoD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory; as of October 2009, this number had grown to more than 6,800. The program's success, however, is causing some big cracks in the system.  According to a report issued this week by congressional watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office.  The military is facing a number of challenges &mdash; including training, accessing national air space, and improving aircraft communications systems &mdash; that must be overcome if unmanned aircraft are to take their place as a central piece of the military's future, the GAO stated."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " Has the highly successful but disparate unmanned aircraft strategy deployed by the military outstripped the Department of Defense 's ability to handle its growth ?
The Air Force , Army , and Navy have requested approximately $ 6.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 for new systems and expanded capabilities .
The Pentagon 's fiscal year 2010 budget request wants to increase the Air Force 's Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 2011    an increase of nearly 300 \ % since fiscal year 2007 .
In 2000 , the DoD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory ; as of October 2009 , this number had grown to more than 6,800 .
The program 's success , however , is causing some big cracks in the system .
According to a report issued this week by congressional watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office .
The military is facing a number of challenges    including training , accessing national air space , and improving aircraft communications systems    that must be overcome if unmanned aircraft are to take their place as a central piece of the military 's future , the GAO stated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "Has the highly successful but disparate unmanned aircraft strategy deployed by the military outstripped the Department of Defense's ability to handle its growth?
The Air Force, Army, and Navy have requested approximately $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 for new systems and expanded capabilities.
The Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request wants to increase the Air Force's Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 2011 — an increase of nearly 300\% since fiscal year 2007.
In 2000, the DoD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory; as of October 2009, this number had grown to more than 6,800.
The program's success, however, is causing some big cracks in the system.
According to a report issued this week by congressional watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office.
The military is facing a number of challenges — including training, accessing national air space, and improving aircraft communications systems — that must be overcome if unmanned aircraft are to take their place as a central piece of the military's future, the GAO stated.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665616</id>
	<title>Re:Boom and bust...</title>
	<author>sewa mobil</author>
	<datestamp>1269875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thanks a lot for the explanation and tips provided</htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks a lot for the explanation and tips provided</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks a lot for the explanation and tips provided</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667486</id>
	<title>Re:Boom and bust...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1269981900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now.</i></p><p>Just a thought...</p><p>Manned flights may actually be over and done with in 20 years.</p><p>Considering the extra cost of the life support systems just for the pilot, the time it takes to train the pilot, the political problems if a pilot is captured, and the over all stress related issues that a pilot must face when during long air patrols, its no wonder they haven't scrapped maned aircraft already.</p><p>The only real objection I can think about to manned versus unmanned is jamming systems.</p><p>Though, that would give a manned pilot just as much trouble flying blind and if we are facing someone with said technology, its most likely Russia or China and we've got bigger problems. And if they are jamming us, that means we have air superiority as it would most likely affect their own craft guidance systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they 'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now.Just a thought...Manned flights may actually be over and done with in 20 years.Considering the extra cost of the life support systems just for the pilot , the time it takes to train the pilot , the political problems if a pilot is captured , and the over all stress related issues that a pilot must face when during long air patrols , its no wonder they have n't scrapped maned aircraft already.The only real objection I can think about to manned versus unmanned is jamming systems.Though , that would give a manned pilot just as much trouble flying blind and if we are facing someone with said technology , its most likely Russia or China and we 've got bigger problems .
And if they are jamming us , that means we have air superiority as it would most likely affect their own craft guidance systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now.Just a thought...Manned flights may actually be over and done with in 20 years.Considering the extra cost of the life support systems just for the pilot, the time it takes to train the pilot, the political problems if a pilot is captured, and the over all stress related issues that a pilot must face when during long air patrols, its no wonder they haven't scrapped maned aircraft already.The only real objection I can think about to manned versus unmanned is jamming systems.Though, that would give a manned pilot just as much trouble flying blind and if we are facing someone with said technology, its most likely Russia or China and we've got bigger problems.
And if they are jamming us, that means we have air superiority as it would most likely affect their own craft guidance systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31670490</id>
	<title>What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1269963540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running out of people to fly the robot predator drones eh?</p><p>I see an easy solution. Why not just automate the whole thing, make an AI that can control these things, that way you can make thousands and thousands of the things! Hey it is probably even cheaper than outsourcing the jobs to Mexicans, Indians, or Chinese, and I mean who wants them in charge of the military might? Why we could create a home grown American AI for Americans. Heck we only have to make one, and then let it communicate via satellites with all of them, how cool is that! That would give us total centralized control over the whole fleet. It would be our network in the sky!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Conner</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running out of people to fly the robot predator drones eh ? I see an easy solution .
Why not just automate the whole thing , make an AI that can control these things , that way you can make thousands and thousands of the things !
Hey it is probably even cheaper than outsourcing the jobs to Mexicans , Indians , or Chinese , and I mean who wants them in charge of the military might ?
Why we could create a home grown American AI for Americans .
Heck we only have to make one , and then let it communicate via satellites with all of them , how cool is that !
That would give us total centralized control over the whole fleet .
It would be our network in the sky !
      -Conner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running out of people to fly the robot predator drones eh?I see an easy solution.
Why not just automate the whole thing, make an AI that can control these things, that way you can make thousands and thousands of the things!
Hey it is probably even cheaper than outsourcing the jobs to Mexicans, Indians, or Chinese, and I mean who wants them in charge of the military might?
Why we could create a home grown American AI for Americans.
Heck we only have to make one, and then let it communicate via satellites with all of them, how cool is that!
That would give us total centralized control over the whole fleet.
It would be our network in the sky!
      -Conner</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31684984</id>
	<title>UAVs not tested in battle enough</title>
	<author>kajjinai</author>
	<datestamp>1270033320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UAVs have never been tested in battle against a stronger opponent. Its been used only against Iraq and Afghanistan both are primitive countries. What happens when they are used against say China (or say Russia)? The first thing the Chinese will do is bring down the satellites and then the drones will be flying blind. So i wouldnt be in too much of a hurry to write off manned Air Force yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UAVs have never been tested in battle against a stronger opponent .
Its been used only against Iraq and Afghanistan both are primitive countries .
What happens when they are used against say China ( or say Russia ) ?
The first thing the Chinese will do is bring down the satellites and then the drones will be flying blind .
So i wouldnt be in too much of a hurry to write off manned Air Force yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UAVs have never been tested in battle against a stronger opponent.
Its been used only against Iraq and Afghanistan both are primitive countries.
What happens when they are used against say China (or say Russia)?
The first thing the Chinese will do is bring down the satellites and then the drones will be flying blind.
So i wouldnt be in too much of a hurry to write off manned Air Force yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668338</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did a separate navy ever make sense?  It's a branch based off a particular technology, akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Air Force doing the same with Jet Planes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did a separate navy ever make sense ?
It 's a branch based off a particular technology , akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service , or the Air Force doing the same with Jet Planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did a separate navy ever make sense?
It's a branch based off a particular technology, akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Air Force doing the same with Jet Planes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665880</id>
	<title>Re:Money better spent</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1269877800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I give.  What country has a population of 28,396,000, an unemployment rate of 35\%, and an avg wage of $900/yr.  Certainly not the United States, whose military we are discussing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I give .
What country has a population of 28,396,000 , an unemployment rate of 35 \ % , and an avg wage of $ 900/yr .
Certainly not the United States , whose military we are discussing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I give.
What country has a population of 28,396,000, an unemployment rate of 35\%, and an avg wage of $900/yr.
Certainly not the United States, whose military we are discussing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666748</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison numbers</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1269886740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what you're considering a UAV.  By far the most common UAV is a glorified toy RC airplane.  The RQ-11B Raven, for example, of which 13,000 have been built, costs about $35,000 including camera and data link.  The ground station is a laptop.
</p><p>Of the big, expensive UAVs you see on the news, Global Hawk and Predator/Reaper, less than 250 have been produced.  I doubt even half of the original MQ-1 Predators remain - according to wikipedia we'd lost 70 of them by March 2009.  UAVs aren't as reliable as human-piloted aircraft, especially while landing.  Also, engine wear is a function of flight hours, and these things can stay in the air for up to 48 hours, depending on the loadout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what you 're considering a UAV .
By far the most common UAV is a glorified toy RC airplane .
The RQ-11B Raven , for example , of which 13,000 have been built , costs about $ 35,000 including camera and data link .
The ground station is a laptop .
Of the big , expensive UAVs you see on the news , Global Hawk and Predator/Reaper , less than 250 have been produced .
I doubt even half of the original MQ-1 Predators remain - according to wikipedia we 'd lost 70 of them by March 2009 .
UAVs are n't as reliable as human-piloted aircraft , especially while landing .
Also , engine wear is a function of flight hours , and these things can stay in the air for up to 48 hours , depending on the loadout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what you're considering a UAV.
By far the most common UAV is a glorified toy RC airplane.
The RQ-11B Raven, for example, of which 13,000 have been built, costs about $35,000 including camera and data link.
The ground station is a laptop.
Of the big, expensive UAVs you see on the news, Global Hawk and Predator/Reaper, less than 250 have been produced.
I doubt even half of the original MQ-1 Predators remain - according to wikipedia we'd lost 70 of them by March 2009.
UAVs aren't as reliable as human-piloted aircraft, especially while landing.
Also, engine wear is a function of flight hours, and these things can stay in the air for up to 48 hours, depending on the loadout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665624</id>
	<title>Money better spent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Population = 28,396,000<br>
Unemployment 35 percent<br>
= unemployed  9,938,000<br>
Money Proposed = 6,100,000,000<br>
Avg current wage yearly = $900<br>
= number of jobs you could fund 6,777,777<br>
Divide by 3 years = 2,259,259 jobs a year</p><p>
A significant improvement in the economy for millions for a few year is far more valuable than the few hundred people that this money would kill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Population = 28,396,000 Unemployment 35 percent = unemployed 9,938,000 Money Proposed = 6,100,000,000 Avg current wage yearly = $ 900 = number of jobs you could fund 6,777,777 Divide by 3 years = 2,259,259 jobs a year A significant improvement in the economy for millions for a few year is far more valuable than the few hundred people that this money would kill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Population = 28,396,000
Unemployment 35 percent
= unemployed  9,938,000
Money Proposed = 6,100,000,000
Avg current wage yearly = $900
= number of jobs you could fund 6,777,777
Divide by 3 years = 2,259,259 jobs a year
A significant improvement in the economy for millions for a few year is far more valuable than the few hundred people that this money would kill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665948</id>
	<title>Ironic -- this tech could bring abundance for all</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1269878460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote on this elsewhere: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html#comment-2450" title="chris-floyd.com">http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html#comment-2450</a> [chris-floyd.com]<br>and:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "It's the unrecognized irony that kills you..."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590182&amp;cid=31561028" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590182&amp;cid=31561028</a> [slashdot.org]<br>"""<br>It is ironic that the technology that goes into such a missile, from the computers and materials to the social networks that plan and test such things could instead bring abundance to everyone in the world. Yet people still build such things from a scarcity-based mindset, not recognizing the total irony. The tools of abundance all around us now (robotics, computers, networks, biotech, chemistry, nanontech, nuclear technology, and so on) are so powerful -- we will destroy ourselves if we use them from a scarcity mindset. If used from an abundance mindset, we could instead make the world into a much happier place.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; As Albert Einstein said, "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all, before we all die of the unrecognized irony.<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote on this elsewhere : " Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism "     http : //www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html # comment-2450 [ chris-floyd.com ] and :     " It 's the unrecognized irony that kills you... "     http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1590182&amp;cid = 31561028 [ slashdot.org ] " " " It is ironic that the technology that goes into such a missile , from the computers and materials to the social networks that plan and test such things could instead bring abundance to everyone in the world .
Yet people still build such things from a scarcity-based mindset , not recognizing the total irony .
The tools of abundance all around us now ( robotics , computers , networks , biotech , chemistry , nanontech , nuclear technology , and so on ) are so powerful -- we will destroy ourselves if we use them from a scarcity mindset .
If used from an abundance mindset , we could instead make the world into a much happier place .
    As Albert Einstein said , " The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind .
"     We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all , before we all die of the unrecognized irony .
" " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote on this elsewhere: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
    http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html#comment-2450 [chris-floyd.com]and:
    "It's the unrecognized irony that kills you..."
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590182&amp;cid=31561028 [slashdot.org]"""It is ironic that the technology that goes into such a missile, from the computers and materials to the social networks that plan and test such things could instead bring abundance to everyone in the world.
Yet people still build such things from a scarcity-based mindset, not recognizing the total irony.
The tools of abundance all around us now (robotics, computers, networks, biotech, chemistry, nanontech, nuclear technology, and so on) are so powerful -- we will destroy ourselves if we use them from a scarcity mindset.
If used from an abundance mindset, we could instead make the world into a much happier place.
    As Albert Einstein said, "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.
"
    We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all, before we all die of the unrecognized irony.
"""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668418</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many regards, the sub service may as well be its own branch, the doctrine is radically different, as are living conditions.  In that respect, the air force is radically different from the army - your "front line" troops are really based several hundred miles behind the front, you don't see your enemy as individuals, etc.  I'd say that the manned/UAV issue in the air force is much more analogous to the Carrier/Battleship issue in the Navy circa WWII.  Fundamentally, even a UAV air force has a different (though complimentary) mission from the army as they are never in a position to take and hold land, merely destroy enemy forces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many regards , the sub service may as well be its own branch , the doctrine is radically different , as are living conditions .
In that respect , the air force is radically different from the army - your " front line " troops are really based several hundred miles behind the front , you do n't see your enemy as individuals , etc .
I 'd say that the manned/UAV issue in the air force is much more analogous to the Carrier/Battleship issue in the Navy circa WWII .
Fundamentally , even a UAV air force has a different ( though complimentary ) mission from the army as they are never in a position to take and hold land , merely destroy enemy forces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many regards, the sub service may as well be its own branch, the doctrine is radically different, as are living conditions.
In that respect, the air force is radically different from the army - your "front line" troops are really based several hundred miles behind the front, you don't see your enemy as individuals, etc.
I'd say that the manned/UAV issue in the air force is much more analogous to the Carrier/Battleship issue in the Navy circa WWII.
Fundamentally, even a UAV air force has a different (though complimentary) mission from the army as they are never in a position to take and hold land, merely destroy enemy forces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31776464</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1270742640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't UAVs make even MORE sense in space than in the air, where taking a meatbag up there is far more expensive than something unmanned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't UAVs make even MORE sense in space than in the air , where taking a meatbag up there is far more expensive than something unmanned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't UAVs make even MORE sense in space than in the air, where taking a meatbag up there is far more expensive than something unmanned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31683472</id>
	<title>from the more-drones-please dept. ???</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1269975900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good god!<br>
Aren't there enough drones on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. already? <br>
 <br>
My Koalic Karma is already at an all time low, and now I have to komment on this krap! <br>
Drone on, dear fellows. I am now approaching 0 degrees Karma (-273 degrees Euro, -459 degrees $)  <br>
Thankfully my entropic energy shall soon be null, and I'll be at rest.
 But due to Heisenberg's ideas, you'll never detect it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good god !
Are n't there enough drones on / .
already ? My Koalic Karma is already at an all time low , and now I have to komment on this krap !
Drone on , dear fellows .
I am now approaching 0 degrees Karma ( -273 degrees Euro , -459 degrees $ ) Thankfully my entropic energy shall soon be null , and I 'll be at rest .
But due to Heisenberg 's ideas , you 'll never detect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good god!
Aren't there enough drones on /.
already? 
 
My Koalic Karma is already at an all time low, and now I have to komment on this krap!
Drone on, dear fellows.
I am now approaching 0 degrees Karma (-273 degrees Euro, -459 degrees $)  
Thankfully my entropic energy shall soon be null, and I'll be at rest.
But due to Heisenberg's ideas, you'll never detect it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666274</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Through The Frontal Lobe</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1269881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're flying an A-10 or an F-15E, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, you get confirmation and go home. When you're flying a UAV, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, then you immediately see the results of what you did live on your sensor screen. And it's rarely pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're flying an A-10 or an F-15E , you get your target , you release your bomb/missile , you get confirmation and go home .
When you 're flying a UAV , you get your target , you release your bomb/missile , then you immediately see the results of what you did live on your sensor screen .
And it 's rarely pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're flying an A-10 or an F-15E, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, you get confirmation and go home.
When you're flying a UAV, you get your target, you release your bomb/missile, then you immediately see the results of what you did live on your sensor screen.
And it's rarely pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672984</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269970860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations, while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.</p></div><p>No, I don't think so. The Navy certainly isn't going to give up claims to operations in space, and they have a point, after all. The Naval Institute says "Space is a kind of ocean, and oceans are where Navies go".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations , while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army , Navy , and Marine Corps.No , I do n't think so .
The Navy certainly is n't going to give up claims to operations in space , and they have a point , after all .
The Naval Institute says " Space is a kind of ocean , and oceans are where Navies go " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations, while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.No, I don't think so.
The Navy certainly isn't going to give up claims to operations in space, and they have a point, after all.
The Naval Institute says "Space is a kind of ocean, and oceans are where Navies go".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669138</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>NekSnappa</author>
	<datestamp>1269957360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not going to argue the culture clash that this will bring about in the Air Force. I do disagree with you on this point.</p><blockquote><div><p>... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually the difference between the primary roles of the Army and the Air Force is more akin to the difference between the Army and the Navy. Primary role of the Army is to project land power. For the Navy it is to project sea power. Air Force is well, to project air power.
</p><p>It's not like the Army gave up all claim to having their own air assets in the '50s when the Air Force was created. Just strategic, airlift, and some tactical responsibilities. They still retained a lot of tactical, and rapid transport capabilities that made sense to retain.
</p><p>You seem to be suggesting that the Air Force should have been kept under the Department of the Army the way that the Marine Corps remains under the Department of the Navy. Having it be the "air" component of the Army the way that the Marines are the "land" component of the Navy. However the primary mission of the Marine Corps is to provide and protect advanced naval bases through amphibious assault forces. This complements and adds to the capabilities for the Navy. But the Air Forces role is to provide air superiority, airlift, and strategic bombing. While that role for the Air Force certainly helps the Army in it's tactical situations, the bigger picture here is the strategic elements for the battle/war in whole not just the Army.
</p><p>And lets not forget that all services have overlaps in capabilities. Every branch has their own aircraft, the Army has some boats, and the Air Force even has some ground forces.
</p><p>And yes I was in the Corps, and my brother retired from the Air Force.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not going to argue the culture clash that this will bring about in the Air Force .
I do disagree with you on this point.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service , or the Navy doing the same with submarines.Actually the difference between the primary roles of the Army and the Air Force is more akin to the difference between the Army and the Navy .
Primary role of the Army is to project land power .
For the Navy it is to project sea power .
Air Force is well , to project air power .
It 's not like the Army gave up all claim to having their own air assets in the '50s when the Air Force was created .
Just strategic , airlift , and some tactical responsibilities .
They still retained a lot of tactical , and rapid transport capabilities that made sense to retain .
You seem to be suggesting that the Air Force should have been kept under the Department of the Army the way that the Marine Corps remains under the Department of the Navy .
Having it be the " air " component of the Army the way that the Marines are the " land " component of the Navy .
However the primary mission of the Marine Corps is to provide and protect advanced naval bases through amphibious assault forces .
This complements and adds to the capabilities for the Navy .
But the Air Forces role is to provide air superiority , airlift , and strategic bombing .
While that role for the Air Force certainly helps the Army in it 's tactical situations , the bigger picture here is the strategic elements for the battle/war in whole not just the Army .
And lets not forget that all services have overlaps in capabilities .
Every branch has their own aircraft , the Army has some boats , and the Air Force even has some ground forces .
And yes I was in the Corps , and my brother retired from the Air Force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not going to argue the culture clash that this will bring about in the Air Force.
I do disagree with you on this point.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines.Actually the difference between the primary roles of the Army and the Air Force is more akin to the difference between the Army and the Navy.
Primary role of the Army is to project land power.
For the Navy it is to project sea power.
Air Force is well, to project air power.
It's not like the Army gave up all claim to having their own air assets in the '50s when the Air Force was created.
Just strategic, airlift, and some tactical responsibilities.
They still retained a lot of tactical, and rapid transport capabilities that made sense to retain.
You seem to be suggesting that the Air Force should have been kept under the Department of the Army the way that the Marine Corps remains under the Department of the Navy.
Having it be the "air" component of the Army the way that the Marines are the "land" component of the Navy.
However the primary mission of the Marine Corps is to provide and protect advanced naval bases through amphibious assault forces.
This complements and adds to the capabilities for the Navy.
But the Air Forces role is to provide air superiority, airlift, and strategic bombing.
While that role for the Air Force certainly helps the Army in it's tactical situations, the bigger picture here is the strategic elements for the battle/war in whole not just the Army.
And lets not forget that all services have overlaps in capabilities.
Every branch has their own aircraft, the Army has some boats, and the Air Force even has some ground forces.
And yes I was in the Corps, and my brother retired from the Air Force.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666658</id>
	<title>I read that as "6.1 million dollars"</title>
	<author>Chalex</author>
	<datestamp>1269885900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I thought, "oh, that's not bad, that's ~10 FTEs and ~$5million of equipment, you can really accomplish something with that".   And then I realized I was off by a factor of a \_thousand\_!!!</p><p>So that's 10 \_thousand\_ full time employees, and 5 \_billion\_ for equipment.  Wow.  What the hell are you doing that you need $6 billion dollars for 50 "combat air patrols"?  Tracking every squirrel in Afghanistan's mountains?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I thought , " oh , that 's not bad , that 's ~ 10 FTEs and ~ $ 5million of equipment , you can really accomplish something with that " .
And then I realized I was off by a factor of a \ _thousand \ _ ! !
! So that 's 10 \ _thousand \ _ full time employees , and 5 \ _billion \ _ for equipment .
Wow. What the hell are you doing that you need $ 6 billion dollars for 50 " combat air patrols " ?
Tracking every squirrel in Afghanistan 's mountains ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I thought, "oh, that's not bad, that's ~10 FTEs and ~$5million of equipment, you can really accomplish something with that".
And then I realized I was off by a factor of a \_thousand\_!!
!So that's 10 \_thousand\_ full time employees, and 5 \_billion\_ for equipment.
Wow.  What the hell are you doing that you need $6 billion dollars for 50 "combat air patrols"?
Tracking every squirrel in Afghanistan's mountains?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667132</id>
	<title>Re:Boom and bust...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269891000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like there is more to this than just funding. It sounds as though there is going to be some outreach to the IT industry for a better solution to their systems. Maybe open sourcing it?</p><p>If piloting is scarce maybe they could resort to bots?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like there is more to this than just funding .
It sounds as though there is going to be some outreach to the IT industry for a better solution to their systems .
Maybe open sourcing it ? If piloting is scarce maybe they could resort to bots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like there is more to this than just funding.
It sounds as though there is going to be some outreach to the IT industry for a better solution to their systems.
Maybe open sourcing it?If piloting is scarce maybe they could resort to bots?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667010</id>
	<title>Guessing this is going to...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1269889260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...put some serious research yuan/dollars, rupee/dollars, and ruble/dollars behind the search for better jamming equipment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...put some serious research yuan/dollars , rupee/dollars , and ruble/dollars behind the search for better jamming equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...put some serious research yuan/dollars, rupee/dollars, and ruble/dollars behind the search for better jamming equipment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672956</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269970800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of "Preparing for the last war"."</p><p>Except that in the future... probably late in our own lifetiimes... you'll see completely autonomous UAV's that aren't remote controlled, but pre-programmed with advanced AI. At launch, we'll literally tell these machines "go kill this guy", and they'll go off and do it. Remote control will only be invoked rarely. Skynet jokes aside, this IS coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of " Preparing for the last war " .
" Except that in the future... probably late in our own lifetiimes... you 'll see completely autonomous UAV 's that are n't remote controlled , but pre-programmed with advanced AI .
At launch , we 'll literally tell these machines " go kill this guy " , and they 'll go off and do it .
Remote control will only be invoked rarely .
Skynet jokes aside , this IS coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of "Preparing for the last war".
"Except that in the future... probably late in our own lifetiimes... you'll see completely autonomous UAV's that aren't remote controlled, but pre-programmed with advanced AI.
At launch, we'll literally tell these machines "go kill this guy", and they'll go off and do it.
Remote control will only be invoked rarely.
Skynet jokes aside, this IS coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666482</id>
	<title>Comparison numbers</title>
	<author>macslut</author>
	<datestamp>1269883920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" In 2000, DOD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory; as of October 2009, this number had grown to more than 6,800."
<p>
Did I just read that correctly?  Are they saying that between 2000 and 2009, more unmanned aircraft were built for the US military than all of the F-14s, F-16s, F-18s and F-22s ever built *combined*?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In 2000 , DOD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory ; as of October 2009 , this number had grown to more than 6,800 .
" Did I just read that correctly ?
Are they saying that between 2000 and 2009 , more unmanned aircraft were built for the US military than all of the F-14s , F-16s , F-18s and F-22s ever built * combined * ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" In 2000, DOD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory; as of October 2009, this number had grown to more than 6,800.
"

Did I just read that correctly?
Are they saying that between 2000 and 2009, more unmanned aircraft were built for the US military than all of the F-14s, F-16s, F-18s and F-22s ever built *combined*?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666122</id>
	<title>Ather applications</title>
	<author>pearl298</author>
	<datestamp>1269880140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just think, before long we can have robots along every highway that can "eliminate" speeders and other evil lawbreakers! <br> <br>
No need for a trial or any of this "pinko liberal" carp - just ZAP them as they offend!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think , before long we can have robots along every highway that can " eliminate " speeders and other evil lawbreakers !
No need for a trial or any of this " pinko liberal " carp - just ZAP them as they offend !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think, before long we can have robots along every highway that can "eliminate" speeders and other evil lawbreakers!
No need for a trial or any of this "pinko liberal" carp - just ZAP them as they offend!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832</id>
	<title>Pay Through The Frontal Lobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269877440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The military is facing a number of challenges, including training, accessing national air space and improving aircraft communications systems..."</p><p>And rehabilitation. For reasons not yet understood UAV remote pilots are suffering more burnout than most others, as well as PTSD to an extent that mystifies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The military is facing a number of challenges , including training , accessing national air space and improving aircraft communications systems... " And rehabilitation .
For reasons not yet understood UAV remote pilots are suffering more burnout than most others , as well as PTSD to an extent that mystifies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The military is facing a number of challenges, including training, accessing national air space and improving aircraft communications systems..."And rehabilitation.
For reasons not yet understood UAV remote pilots are suffering more burnout than most others, as well as PTSD to an extent that mystifies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665696</id>
	<title>Re:Boom and bust...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269876420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seems like this works so well they want more of it</p></div></blockquote><p>Nothing like Predator drones for hunting moose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this works so well they want more of itNothing like Predator drones for hunting moose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this works so well they want more of itNothing like Predator drones for hunting moose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>Mistah Blue</author>
	<datestamp>1269955560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations, while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations , while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army , Navy , and Marine Corps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations, while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669354</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1269958560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too. And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense? It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines. Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.</p></div></blockquote><p>One word "Jamming".</p><p>Remote controlled drones work against low-technology enemies that cannot blanket the radio spectrum with high-power white noise or shoot down your high-altitude relays (if you use line-of-sight comms technologies such as lasers). The drones can only go autonomous for simple tasks and are (not yet) capable of wining a dogfight with a human-controlled fighter.</p><p>Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of "Preparing for the last war".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force , and I think the current crop of pilots know it too .
And it begs the question , did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense ?
It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service , or the Navy doing the same with submarines .
Airpower really is n't a doctrine so much as it 's just one more weapon in your arsenal.One word " Jamming " .Remote controlled drones work against low-technology enemies that can not blanket the radio spectrum with high-power white noise or shoot down your high-altitude relays ( if you use line-of-sight comms technologies such as lasers ) .
The drones can only go autonomous for simple tasks and are ( not yet ) capable of wining a dogfight with a human-controlled fighter.Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of " Preparing for the last war " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too.
And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense?
It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines.
Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.One word "Jamming".Remote controlled drones work against low-technology enemies that cannot blanket the radio spectrum with high-power white noise or shoot down your high-altitude relays (if you use line-of-sight comms technologies such as lasers).
The drones can only go autonomous for simple tasks and are (not yet) capable of wining a dogfight with a human-controlled fighter.Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of "Preparing for the last war".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31671804</id>
	<title>The error is between the eye and the plane ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if your control signal is jammed ? UAV are a smart technology, but I'm cautious that it could be defeated by some basic radio crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if your control signal is jammed ?
UAV are a smart technology , but I 'm cautious that it could be defeated by some basic radio crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if your control signal is jammed ?
UAV are a smart technology, but I'm cautious that it could be defeated by some basic radio crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</id>
	<title>Boom and bust...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1269870240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now. Some programs win, some programs lose. Typical Washington debate about to come up...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they 'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now .
Some programs win , some programs lose .
Typical Washington debate about to come up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now.
Some programs win, some programs lose.
Typical Washington debate about to come up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668068</id>
	<title>Ender's game for the U.S. Air Force!</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1269946080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(previously posted on Feb. 22)  YouKill.com! - A way to outsource the Airforce's growing need for more UAV jockeys.</p><p>Announcing a new on-line game for all of you armchair warriors: YouKILL.com! With the U.S. Airforce now introducing new Predator drones with 10 cameras each and more and more battlefield "robots" (like BigDog) everyday, there is far too much sensory data for our overtaxed professional soldiers to process. So, now we allow YOU the average citizen to partake in this wonderful way to defend democracy and earn gaming points at the same time!</p><p>First stage SCOUT - after showing that you are a U.S. Citizen and 16 years of age (wink, wink), you (and 10 randomly selected other fellow citizen scouts) are assigned a real-time video feed STRAIGHT FROM THE SKIES OVER IRAN / I mean AFGHANISTAN. If a majority of you click on the button "Suspected Bad Guy" at the same time, the video feed is instantly passed on to the next level, TARGETING. When you've proven to our computers that you're a good scout by having a excellent record of detection and (as compared with your other teammates) a "low" number of false positives you'll be promoted! (Sorry, detecting hot babes don't count!)</p><p>Second stage TARGETING - Can you take out an insurgent at 3km without harming the orphanage next door? Here again, you (and 10 newly selected random fellow citizen targeters) will wait for "the perfect moment" to pick off the bad guys. In this level, you'll need to consider range, airspeed, armanent, cover and, of course, COLLATERAL DAMAGE. When a majority of you and your teammates think the time has come to fire, your feed will be instantly passed to the final stage: FIRING. If you, as measured by the our computers, are consistently picking the best time to shoot compared to your colleagues, we'll promote you to...</p><p>Final stege FIRING - Here's where the fun REALLY begins! Now, you'll be able to take out bad guys FOR REAL! Feel the excitement as you unleash high speed rockets tipped with explosives at the enemy! Not only will you get to keep your online footage of each kill but you'll receive a commemorative coffee mug! (Just don't get too trigger happy otherwise you might get a visit from some of our military lawyers.)</p><p>Not a U.S. Citizen? No problem, we have a bunch of other suppression activities... I mean games available. If you're British you can play YouCOP which takes advantage of England being the video surveillance capital of the world. Here you (and 10 other "Brits") watch for illegal activity and report it! For now, no weaponry involved. But don't worry about it!</p><p>Not a U.S., or British citizen? Care to remain anonymous? Through special arrangement with some other governments we also have a new gaming site: YouREPRESS! Here you can target Tibetans, punish the Palestinians or any other group that our clients want to suppress. All we need is your eyeballs and a good twitch reflex! Remember, points you earn in our games will be tradable for virtual items and maybe even induction into the armed forces of your choice!</p><p>We're NeoOCP - crowdsourcing for the benefits of Big Governments worldwide. (Not a big government but a big corporation instead? Don't worry, we'll be announcing new crowdsourced spy products for you too! Like our new YouDRM; we'll make it profitable for people to snitch!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( previously posted on Feb. 22 ) YouKill.com !
- A way to outsource the Airforce 's growing need for more UAV jockeys.Announcing a new on-line game for all of you armchair warriors : YouKILL.com !
With the U.S. Airforce now introducing new Predator drones with 10 cameras each and more and more battlefield " robots " ( like BigDog ) everyday , there is far too much sensory data for our overtaxed professional soldiers to process .
So , now we allow YOU the average citizen to partake in this wonderful way to defend democracy and earn gaming points at the same time ! First stage SCOUT - after showing that you are a U.S. Citizen and 16 years of age ( wink , wink ) , you ( and 10 randomly selected other fellow citizen scouts ) are assigned a real-time video feed STRAIGHT FROM THE SKIES OVER IRAN / I mean AFGHANISTAN .
If a majority of you click on the button " Suspected Bad Guy " at the same time , the video feed is instantly passed on to the next level , TARGETING .
When you 've proven to our computers that you 're a good scout by having a excellent record of detection and ( as compared with your other teammates ) a " low " number of false positives you 'll be promoted !
( Sorry , detecting hot babes do n't count !
) Second stage TARGETING - Can you take out an insurgent at 3km without harming the orphanage next door ?
Here again , you ( and 10 newly selected random fellow citizen targeters ) will wait for " the perfect moment " to pick off the bad guys .
In this level , you 'll need to consider range , airspeed , armanent , cover and , of course , COLLATERAL DAMAGE .
When a majority of you and your teammates think the time has come to fire , your feed will be instantly passed to the final stage : FIRING .
If you , as measured by the our computers , are consistently picking the best time to shoot compared to your colleagues , we 'll promote you to...Final stege FIRING - Here 's where the fun REALLY begins !
Now , you 'll be able to take out bad guys FOR REAL !
Feel the excitement as you unleash high speed rockets tipped with explosives at the enemy !
Not only will you get to keep your online footage of each kill but you 'll receive a commemorative coffee mug !
( Just do n't get too trigger happy otherwise you might get a visit from some of our military lawyers .
) Not a U.S. Citizen ? No problem , we have a bunch of other suppression activities... I mean games available .
If you 're British you can play YouCOP which takes advantage of England being the video surveillance capital of the world .
Here you ( and 10 other " Brits " ) watch for illegal activity and report it !
For now , no weaponry involved .
But do n't worry about it ! Not a U.S. , or British citizen ?
Care to remain anonymous ?
Through special arrangement with some other governments we also have a new gaming site : YouREPRESS !
Here you can target Tibetans , punish the Palestinians or any other group that our clients want to suppress .
All we need is your eyeballs and a good twitch reflex !
Remember , points you earn in our games will be tradable for virtual items and maybe even induction into the armed forces of your choice ! We 're NeoOCP - crowdsourcing for the benefits of Big Governments worldwide .
( Not a big government but a big corporation instead ?
Do n't worry , we 'll be announcing new crowdsourced spy products for you too !
Like our new YouDRM ; we 'll make it profitable for people to snitch !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(previously posted on Feb. 22)  YouKill.com!
- A way to outsource the Airforce's growing need for more UAV jockeys.Announcing a new on-line game for all of you armchair warriors: YouKILL.com!
With the U.S. Airforce now introducing new Predator drones with 10 cameras each and more and more battlefield "robots" (like BigDog) everyday, there is far too much sensory data for our overtaxed professional soldiers to process.
So, now we allow YOU the average citizen to partake in this wonderful way to defend democracy and earn gaming points at the same time!First stage SCOUT - after showing that you are a U.S. Citizen and 16 years of age (wink, wink), you (and 10 randomly selected other fellow citizen scouts) are assigned a real-time video feed STRAIGHT FROM THE SKIES OVER IRAN / I mean AFGHANISTAN.
If a majority of you click on the button "Suspected Bad Guy" at the same time, the video feed is instantly passed on to the next level, TARGETING.
When you've proven to our computers that you're a good scout by having a excellent record of detection and (as compared with your other teammates) a "low" number of false positives you'll be promoted!
(Sorry, detecting hot babes don't count!
)Second stage TARGETING - Can you take out an insurgent at 3km without harming the orphanage next door?
Here again, you (and 10 newly selected random fellow citizen targeters) will wait for "the perfect moment" to pick off the bad guys.
In this level, you'll need to consider range, airspeed, armanent, cover and, of course, COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
When a majority of you and your teammates think the time has come to fire, your feed will be instantly passed to the final stage: FIRING.
If you, as measured by the our computers, are consistently picking the best time to shoot compared to your colleagues, we'll promote you to...Final stege FIRING - Here's where the fun REALLY begins!
Now, you'll be able to take out bad guys FOR REAL!
Feel the excitement as you unleash high speed rockets tipped with explosives at the enemy!
Not only will you get to keep your online footage of each kill but you'll receive a commemorative coffee mug!
(Just don't get too trigger happy otherwise you might get a visit from some of our military lawyers.
)Not a U.S. Citizen? No problem, we have a bunch of other suppression activities... I mean games available.
If you're British you can play YouCOP which takes advantage of England being the video surveillance capital of the world.
Here you (and 10 other "Brits") watch for illegal activity and report it!
For now, no weaponry involved.
But don't worry about it!Not a U.S., or British citizen?
Care to remain anonymous?
Through special arrangement with some other governments we also have a new gaming site: YouREPRESS!
Here you can target Tibetans, punish the Palestinians or any other group that our clients want to suppress.
All we need is your eyeballs and a good twitch reflex!
Remember, points you earn in our games will be tradable for virtual items and maybe even induction into the armed forces of your choice!We're NeoOCP - crowdsourcing for the benefits of Big Governments worldwide.
(Not a big government but a big corporation instead?
Don't worry, we'll be announcing new crowdsourced spy products for you too!
Like our new YouDRM; we'll make it profitable for people to snitch!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</id>
	<title>More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269884040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now. Some programs win, some programs lose. Typical Washington debate about to come up...</p></div><p>No, more than that, UAV's are such a contentious issue because of the tremendous culture clash it's causing in the Air Force. In the Army, Navy, and Marines, UAV's are just another military tech tool to use in battle. But in the Air Force, which bases its entire identity on the old Knights of the Air thing, UAV's aren't seen as a valuable tool so much as they're seen as a threat to the very existence of the Air Force itself.</p><p>Think about it. If the day is coming when you can train young, non pilot computer geeks to do what current pilots do.... at less cost and less training time, too.... then why have an independent Air Force at all? Because sooner or later, we'll be able to make UAV fighters that can maneuver better, fly farther, and hit harder than any manned craft of today. It's just a matter of time</p><p>I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too. And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense? It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines. Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.</p><p>I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone, and looked at the same way jousting knights in armor are looked at... a glamorous, romantic period that was relatively brief, and brought to an end by technology that made it obsolete.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they 'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now .
Some programs win , some programs lose .
Typical Washington debate about to come up...No , more than that , UAV 's are such a contentious issue because of the tremendous culture clash it 's causing in the Air Force .
In the Army , Navy , and Marines , UAV 's are just another military tech tool to use in battle .
But in the Air Force , which bases its entire identity on the old Knights of the Air thing , UAV 's are n't seen as a valuable tool so much as they 're seen as a threat to the very existence of the Air Force itself.Think about it .
If the day is coming when you can train young , non pilot computer geeks to do what current pilots do.... at less cost and less training time , too.... then why have an independent Air Force at all ?
Because sooner or later , we 'll be able to make UAV fighters that can maneuver better , fly farther , and hit harder than any manned craft of today .
It 's just a matter of timeI think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force , and I think the current crop of pilots know it too .
And it begs the question , did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense ?
It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service , or the Navy doing the same with submarines .
Airpower really is n't a doctrine so much as it 's just one more weapon in your arsenal.I think by our children or grandchildren 's lifetimes , the Air Force may be long gone , and looked at the same way jousting knights in armor are looked at... a glamorous , romantic period that was relatively brief , and brought to an end by technology that made it obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now.
Some programs win, some programs lose.
Typical Washington debate about to come up...No, more than that, UAV's are such a contentious issue because of the tremendous culture clash it's causing in the Air Force.
In the Army, Navy, and Marines, UAV's are just another military tech tool to use in battle.
But in the Air Force, which bases its entire identity on the old Knights of the Air thing, UAV's aren't seen as a valuable tool so much as they're seen as a threat to the very existence of the Air Force itself.Think about it.
If the day is coming when you can train young, non pilot computer geeks to do what current pilots do.... at less cost and less training time, too.... then why have an independent Air Force at all?
Because sooner or later, we'll be able to make UAV fighters that can maneuver better, fly farther, and hit harder than any manned craft of today.
It's just a matter of timeI think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too.
And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense?
It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines.
Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone, and looked at the same way jousting knights in armor are looked at... a glamorous, romantic period that was relatively brief, and brought to an end by technology that made it obsolete.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669976</id>
	<title>Military industrial complex</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1269961740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone"<br>
<br>
Ah, ye of little faith in this country's military-industrial complex.  It is the engine that drives our economy.  We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined.  We have, almost constantly, for the past 50 years, been invading some country or another for no particular reason.  The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em  Forever released.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think by our children or grandchildren 's lifetimes , the Air Force may be long gone " Ah , ye of little faith in this country 's military-industrial complex .
It is the engine that drives our economy .
We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined .
We have , almost constantly , for the past 50 years , been invading some country or another for no particular reason .
The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em Forever released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone"

Ah, ye of little faith in this country's military-industrial complex.
It is the engine that drives our economy.
We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined.
We have, almost constantly, for the past 50 years, been invading some country or another for no particular reason.
The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em  Forever released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31674076</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>DadLeopard</author>
	<datestamp>1269974280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess that eventually they will have to be satisfied with being the Airborne truck drivers, bus drivers and in-flight fuel stations! Might even get to fly the mother ship than launches the little zippy  Armed UAVs and then re-fuels them in flight! The real problem with expanding into aerial combat is going to be bandwidth for the video the Controllers on the ground are going to need to be able to have situational awareness, that and the slight lag time for the signals to go half way around the world and back!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that eventually they will have to be satisfied with being the Airborne truck drivers , bus drivers and in-flight fuel stations !
Might even get to fly the mother ship than launches the little zippy Armed UAVs and then re-fuels them in flight !
The real problem with expanding into aerial combat is going to be bandwidth for the video the Controllers on the ground are going to need to be able to have situational awareness , that and the slight lag time for the signals to go half way around the world and back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that eventually they will have to be satisfied with being the Airborne truck drivers, bus drivers and in-flight fuel stations!
Might even get to fly the mother ship than launches the little zippy  Armed UAVs and then re-fuels them in flight!
The real problem with expanding into aerial combat is going to be bandwidth for the video the Controllers on the ground are going to need to be able to have situational awareness, that and the slight lag time for the signals to go half way around the world and back!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664826</id>
	<title>Bad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These thing remove the human element to much, from dropping missiles onto weddings and random cars they target from "intel" received.<br>I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get  verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These thing remove the human element to much , from dropping missiles onto weddings and random cars they target from " intel " received.I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war , get verification of who your killing , this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These thing remove the human element to much, from dropping missiles onto weddings and random cars they target from "intel" received.I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get  verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666372</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Through The Frontal Lobe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269882720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the sun never sets on the u.s empire</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sun never sets on the u.s empire</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the sun never sets on the u.s empire</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31673058</id>
	<title>Re:More than the usual debate...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269971100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference being that the Navy has a claim to a separate identity for one immutable reason... they live where they fight, on the ocean itself. It makes sense to specialize because of this. The Air Force doesn't live in castles in the sky... there are no cloud cities from Star Wars. They live, train, and fight on ground bases... same as the Army. When the Air Force can stay in the air six months at a time, then give me a call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference being that the Navy has a claim to a separate identity for one immutable reason... they live where they fight , on the ocean itself .
It makes sense to specialize because of this .
The Air Force does n't live in castles in the sky... there are no cloud cities from Star Wars .
They live , train , and fight on ground bases... same as the Army .
When the Air Force can stay in the air six months at a time , then give me a call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference being that the Navy has a claim to a separate identity for one immutable reason... they live where they fight, on the ocean itself.
It makes sense to specialize because of this.
The Air Force doesn't live in castles in the sky... there are no cloud cities from Star Wars.
They live, train, and fight on ground bases... same as the Army.
When the Air Force can stay in the air six months at a time, then give me a call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672908</id>
	<title>Re:Military industrial complex</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269970620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need an independent Air Force to continue a military industrial complex. Someone will have to make those pilotless aircraft for the Army and Navy, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need an independent Air Force to continue a military industrial complex .
Someone will have to make those pilotless aircraft for the Army and Navy , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need an independent Air Force to continue a military industrial complex.
Someone will have to make those pilotless aircraft for the Army and Navy, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667246</id>
	<title>Use them against US cititizens</title>
	<author>sulimma</author>
	<datestamp>1269892440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, if they use the drons against US cititzens more frequently they could save a lot on police, courts and prisons:<br><a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-US-citizen-killed-drone-strike" title="wanttoknow.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-US-citizen-killed-drone-strike</a> [wanttoknow.info]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , if they use the drons against US cititzens more frequently they could save a lot on police , courts and prisons : http : //www.wanttoknow.info/a-US-citizen-killed-drone-strike [ wanttoknow.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, if they use the drons against US cititzens more frequently they could save a lot on police, courts and prisons:http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-US-citizen-killed-drone-strike [wanttoknow.info]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666910</id>
	<title>Most emphatically...</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1269888240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The military is facing a number of challenges,</i> [...] <i>accessing national air space</i> [...]</p><p>
Um, yeah.  How about 'no'.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The military is facing a number of challenges , [ ... ] accessing national air space [ ... ] Um , yeah .
How about 'no' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The military is facing a number of challenges, [...] accessing national air space [...]
Um, yeah.
How about 'no'.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31673058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31776464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31674076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2150258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2150258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31669976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31776464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31672984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31674076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31668338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31673058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31667486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2150258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2150258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31664826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2150258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31665832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2150258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2150258.31666748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
